Saturday 19 November 2011

Electoral Reform

Electoral reform isn’t the best topic to get the pulses racing. For people that are engaged in politics, there are other subdivisions which generally grab attention. It may be a fiery tribalist exchange at Prime Ministers Questions, a General Election or divisive and topical subjects on Question Time. Electoral reform isn’t often a priority for social democrats, either. However, in this essay, I will discuss why it should be a priority, and why it is far more important and interesting than it appears on the surface.

Firstly, let’s look at the facts. The current electoral system in Britain, First Past the Post (FPTP), has been in force for well over a hundred years. It could be argued that in the past, it served a decent purpose in a very much two-party majoritarian political system, between the Liberals and Conservatives, then later between the Conservatives and Labour. However, with the emergence of the three party system, the inequities of FPTP have become more and more apparent. Take the 1983 election, for example. With the Conservatives winning a landslide victory, a key focus was on who would finish second, thanks to the strong showing of the SDP-Liberal Alliance. Labour came second on 27.6% of the vote, winning 209 seats. The Alliance obtained 25.4% of the vote, just 2.2% less than Labour. Their seat share? 23 seats. For a party which nearly 8 million people voted for, a return of just 3.54% of the seats in the House of Commons does not reflect fairness at all.

Despite their strong opposition to electoral reform, Conservatives could have felt similarly aggrieved at the results of the 2005 General Election:

Labour: 35.19% popular vote, 55.11% parliamentary seats (355)
Conservatives: 32.36% popular vote, 30.65% parliamentary seats (198)
Liberal Democrats: 22.05% popular vote, 9.60% parliamentary seats (62)

A party with just 2.83% less of the share of the popular vote had been rewarded with 157 less seats. Around 10% behind that, the Liberal Democrats did not even gain double figures in terms of the share of parliamentary seats. Go to the vote summary on this link to see how this deficit is illustratively highlighted: 

You can find many more examples of these pervasive deficiencies of vote shares against seat representation. Simple mathematics are a potent enough message to convey regarding just how unfair FPTP is.

They are the facts. Now the reasons. The issue of voter apathy is a very serious one, and one that is very shocking when you consider just how many people do not vote; out of an electorate of approximately 45 million, the 65% turnout at the 2010 election indicates that roughly 15.4 million people who could have voted did not. 15.4 million. The issue of this apathy is not down to FPTP alone. Many people understandably feel disengaged and disillusioned with politics; one look at Prime Ministers Questions and its childish antics alone would be enough to convince most people that the legislators in this country are not worth their salt. However, many people also feel that their vote does not count, and that it won’t make a difference. Here is where electoral reform is an issue. In the UK, there are far too many cases where safe seats are the norm, and look like they’ll forever be the norm. Take this as an example:
Constituency 1
Party A: 20,000 votes
Party B: 10,000 votes
Party C: 10,000 votes
Party D: 10,000 votes
Party E: 6,000 votes

Party A wins with a comfortable 10,000 vote majority, a safe seat, yet 36,000 people in Constituency 1 voted against the winning candidate. A fair reflection of what the voters wanted? Constituency 1 has returned an MP who over 60% of the voters didn’t want, and that doesn’t take into account the amount of eligible voters in constituency 1 who did not vote, and for a good reason; they didn’t think their vote would have made a difference.
Here is a real life example, in the constituency of Hexham at the 2010 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

18, 795 people voted for Guy Opperman, 24,688 voted against him, yet he won with a comfortable 5,788 majority.


I apologise for yet more mathematical illustrations, but they go some way to explaining why so many people feel that their vote is worthless, and how so many voters are disenfranchised. Tactical voting is another cynical and pervasive component of FPTP. In many cases, voters feel forced to vote for the candidate most likely to beat their least preferred candidate as opposed to the candidate they would most like to vote for. A YouGov poll in 2010 showed that 49% of voters would have voted Liberal Democrat if they thought that they could win. It sounds so simple; that 49% just need to go and vote Lib Dem, and they’ll win. But it isn’t that simple. That 49% don’t feel that the Lib Dems can win, so many of them vote for a second preference that is the next most likely to win, or the most likely to beat their least favourite party. Again, a fair reflection of what voters want?

So, what’s the alternative? For the Liberal Democrats, a long cherished goal has been Proportional Representation (PR), or the Single Transferable Vote (STV). As much as certain politicians would love to tell you that this system is ridiculously complicated and impossible, it is quite the opposite; you get a proportion of seats in accordance with the proportion of the vote you get.

In such a system, a political party would have to get at least 50% of the national vote to win an overall majority, or at least have a combined 50% share. Now this is a fair reflection of what voters want. As a strong supporter of PR, I believe such a system would strongly engage people with politics, and make them feel like their vote would count. It would also end the hegemony and inevitability of General Elections; bar Hung Parliaments such as in 2010, poll figures months before an election are often relatively accurate indicators of the result. It would also radically shake up and alter seat representation. Under FPTP in 2010, the Tories won 308 seats, Labour 258 seats and the Lib Dems 57 seats. Under PR (in crude terms), the Tories would have had 235, Labour 189 and the Lib Dems 150. We should ignore the crude and deriding claims that “the voters won’t understand it”, but PR does raise legitimate concerns. Will extremists like the BNP benefit, and gain representation? Yes, they will gain representation, which you could argue is how a democracy works. Will they benefit? No; they would have 12 seats at a generous guess, which is nowhere near enough for them to implement their racist agenda, and such a platform would soon expose them for what they really are.

Sadly, the argument for electoral reform has been lost, for now. The Jenkins Commission (by Roy Jenkins), recommending the AV+ system for the House of Commons in 1998, was never implemented. A referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) in May 2011 (voters would rank each party from 1-5 in order of preference, with preferences redistributed until one party gets an overall majority) was lost in bruising fashion; on a turnout of 42.2%, 32% voted yes and 68% voted no. Various reasons for the defeat can be speculated; a lack of coherence in the Yes2AV message, cynical campaigning from the No2AV campaign and Conservatives in particular, and bitterness against Nick Clegg and his coalition with the Tories. What is a lost argument for now should not be lost forever.

I perfectly understand that not every social democrat views electoral reform with vigour above all else. Issues over taxation, spending and the economy rightly take centre stage in discussions. However, social democracy is also about inclusiveness, something which many disillusioned voters (and indeed people who don’t vote) don’t get from the current political set up. There are many reasons for this, but the issue of FPTP can certainly be traced as a key source for one of them. Let’s say you’re in a safe Tory seat, but are a proudly Labour; the Tories have a near impregnable majority of 15,000, with the last Labour candidate gaining just 4,000 votes-will you vote? Probably not. Now let’s say you have multiple candidates in a constituency, can rank them in order of preference, and know that the apparently safe Tory candidate has to get at least 50% of the vote to be elected. Now will you vote? The outcome is likely to be more positive. An inherently biased electoral system such as FPTP, one that is utterly unfit and out of date for the 21st century, is not the way forward. Defenders of the status quo will try and tell you differently, but that is out of self interest. Conservatives up and down the country love to tell young people that they want to get them active and engaged with politics, yet they consistently defend a system that disenfranchises them. The nation as a whole is often left with a governing party that is not wholly reflective of what they wanted. Choose the battle for fairness and responsibility; electoral reform offers pluralism as well as accountability. Don’t just take my word for it; follow the link at the bottom to the Electoral Reform Society.

Social democracy is about reform as well as being progressive; the two consistently go hand in hand. Social democracy is also about fairness, change and justice. Electoral reform ticks all of these bottles, and it should always be the aim to kick FPTP in to the long grass for good. The time for change in the electoral system is long overdue. Britain is ready for it.


Disclaimer: I do not own any of the above internet clips or links; Youtube and Wikipedia have all of the rights!

Tuesday 25 October 2011

Taxation

There will probably never be a tax system that pleases everyone. Redistributive taxation, welcomed by social democrats, is often a source of anger for businessmen and high earners, who threaten with the customary argument of seeking pastures abroad. Low taxation evokes a sense of entrepreneurialism and pro-business in the City, but in turn antagonises those at the lower end of the income threshold, who may lash out with cries of politicians “looking after their own”. Low taxation in boom periods often buries down this argument, as unemployment decreases and so-called ‘all round prosperity’ is created. However, in these austere times, the issue of taxation is now more important than ever, and typically divisive in political circles and beyond.

I am not an economist. I profess ignorance on the matter, and confess that the content of this essay may be more idealistic than plausible; nevertheless taxation is often a matter of politics as well as economics (perhaps even more so), and I will do my best to be credible. The current top rate of tax of 50p in the pound was introduced by Chancellor Alistair Darling in 2008, as an attempt at increasing revenue during the global economic crisis, as well as recession in the United Kingdom. It has sparked bitter debate ever since. The desirable aim of the Conservatives is to cut it, with current Chancellor George Osbourne calling it “uncompetitive”, whilst the likes of Boris Johnson argue that it raises little, and drives away business and entrepreneurs. On the other hand, Liberal Democrat (and Chief Secretary to the Treasury) Danny Alexander declares that people wishing for its demise are “living in cloud cuckoo land”, and fellow Liberal Democrat (and potential future leader) Tim Farron calling it “phenomenally immoral”, with it sending “an appalling message to the overwhelming majority of hard-working people in this country”. A commission has been set up to investigate just how much the 50% rate raises. Ed Miliband has previously suggesting keeping the tax permanent as a symbol of fairness.

It is mainly due to a symbol of fairness that I am in favour of keeping the 50p rate, for now. With millions struggling and unemployment raising, I cannot see how cutting income tax for those earning the most can be a priority. I don’t buy in to the belief that cutting tax burdens for those at the top will somehow filter down prosperity to those at the bottom, or as Bill Clinton calls it-“trickled down economics”. George Osbourne’s “we’re all in this together” message would certainly sound hollow. As well as symbolism, it is important to look at the facts, too. Firstly, the 50p rate only applies to those earning above £150,000 per year. Secondly, people earning above this figure do not have half of their earnings disappear in tax; taxation is banded, with different rates applied to different thresholds*. Thirdly, the tax only affects around 320,000 people; there are 60 million others to consider.

I am not a unilateral supporter of the 50p rate. I don’t necessarily see it as a priority to keep permanently, as Ed Miliband does. As a social democrat, it is desirable, but as things stand in the UK you will be hindered in an attempt to win a General Election if you explicitly support a permanent 50p rate. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that the tax should remain throughout this parliament (to 2015). I will observe with interest the finalised figures of revenue from the commission, but cutting the rate is not justifiable in this parliament. I agree with Nick Clegg’s view that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden”, but believe that the burden is not strongly felt by those in the 50p band. As Vince Cable said at the Liberal Democrat Autumn Conference, it is hard to believe that business, revenue and economic competence will suddenly flood back to the UK once the tax is abolished. For political reasons, Osborne will not want unfunded tax cuts despite the temptation of ‘sweetners’, especially as he is currently deriding Labour for supposedly promising unfunded agendas such as a cut in VAT. Furthermore, with deficit reduction a priority of the Government, now is not the time to cut the 50p tax rate. It should also not be a priority once the economy improves.

I believe a taxation priority, both now and in safer economic climes, is the raising of the income tax threshold at the bottom. I applaud the Liberal Democrats for implementing their core manifesto pledge of raising the income tax threshold to £10,000. Sacrifices were made in the Coalition Agreement, but this policy had to be a priority. A million people have already been raised out of income tax altogether. But I would go further. I have an idealistic goal, one which I would love to be implemented one day; raising the income tax threshold to £15,000. I make no bones about this; I accept that such a plan is not financially viable now. Raising the threshold to £10,000 is estimated to cost the Government £17 billion. However, it would be the mark of a Government to implement such a proposal in times of prosperity; the Labour Party could reclaim the social justice agenda with such a move, and with the Liberal Democrats supposedly aiming higher for a threshold of £12,500, they could claim it too. Such a policy would not be pursued by the Conservative Party. A threshold of £15,000 would strongly reward hard work, long hours and dedication from the millions of Britons who form part of Nick Clegg’s “alarm clock Britain”. I know from my own family and friends that such jobs as Teaching Assistants, Nurses and many more professions work their socks off; they work long hours, are wholly dedicated to their cause, get up early in the morning, and they have mouths to feed. All of this is often with scant reward and recognition. Such a policy would therefore reward these valiant endeavours, and also increase the popularity and prestige of these underrated yet vital professions. A great deal of people earning above the threshold would also receive a substantial tax cut; the likes of postgraduates and apprentices would be able to kick-start their fledgling career. From an economic point of view (budding economists can feel free to prove me wrong here!), spending power would be increased, alleviating fears of a contraction in the economy. The cost of living, with mortgage/rent payments and utilities, would also be eased.

I know the above policy sounds unachievable. I confess that it would cost vast sums of money, and would be difficult to implement, and it is a policy that I cannot envisage at this time. That should not make it impossible. It is a cause worth pursuing; one which I believe would transform the social justice agenda, and improve standards of living to unprecedented degrees. Whatever my political allegiance, I hope raising the income tax threshold to £15,000 can be respected now, and one day realised. I’d be stretching the bounds of idealism further still by suggesting that cutting tax on “the squeezed middle” could also be implemented as the next step (Ed Miliband defines this as those earning above and below £26,000), but if there was only a place for pragmatism and realism in politics, then I would find very little interest in the subject. Or I could become a Conservative.

-Ben




*
Income Tax rates and taxable bands
Rate
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Starting rate for savings: 10%*
£0-£2,440
£0-£2,440
£0-£2,560
Basic rate: 20%
£0-£37,400
£0-£37,400
£0-£35,000
Higher rate: 40%
Over £37,400
£37,401-£150,000
£35,001-£150,000
Additional rate: 50%
Not applicable
Over £150,000
Over £150,000

Thursday 20 October 2011

The 2015 General Election; who's going to win?

It is not always wise to predict elections that are years away even under normal conditions. If future elections were predicted on poll leads and analysis carried out in the embryonic stages of government, then Margaret Thatcher would have crumbled as one of the worst Prime Ministers ever, and New Labour would still be in power today with a comfortable majority. Nevertheless, these are not normal circumstances in the country today, and the variety of factors involved in making such predictions serves to consider this interesting scenario; who could win in 2015, and how will they win?

A very early and crude prediction could be made on current poll trends. A UK polling report average currently has the Conservatives on 37%, Labour on 41% and the Liberal Democrats on 10%. If this were to translate in to an election, the Tories would have 261 seats, Labour 348 seats and the Lib Dems 16 seats; Labour would have a comfortable 46 seat majority. However, poll trends are often inconsistent, even right up to election day (the 1992 Election was widely assumed to result in a Hung Parliament, with Labour as the largest party; the Tories won with a 21 seat majority). Furthermore, if the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act is fully implemented, then the House of Commons will be reduced in size to 600 seats, therefore putting in to question how these poll percentages are translated in to seats. Another interesting element is the apparent inconsistency in current poll trends; Labour have a comfortable lead, yet Ed Miliband scores the lower than David Cameron and Nick Clegg when based on polls concerned with “who would make the best Prime Minister?” It is clear that polls alone cannot accurately predict elections.

The state of the economy is always a major issue when a General Election occurs; the IMF bailout and the ‘Winter of Discontent’ under Labour rule in the 1970s were key factors in Margaret Thatcher winning for the Conservatives in 1979. David Cameron and the current coalition government remain adamant that they will not change course on their aim to eliminate the structural deficit by the end of the parliament, but they would appear to be paying the price for it currently in terms of popularity. Despite repeated claims from Cameron that Labour do not have a credible alternative, along with attacks on their record in government from 1997-2010, Labour have had a comfortable lead in the polls for some time now. However, are Ed Miliband and Labour merely enjoying the fruits of Opposition? Attacking unpopular moves by incumbent governments more often than not result in short term gains in popularity, but a lot can happen over four or five years. As ever, hypothetical questions form part of the musings; if the deficit is eliminated or significantly reduced, and growth returns before 2015, will the Conservative’s austere measures be rewarded by the electorate? Would Labour be of relevance if the economy regains its strength? In turn, if the deficit reduction plan fails and unemployment remains high, will voters trust Labour again with the economy despite criticisms of their role in the banking crisis in 2008?

For David Cameron to win, his core aim needs to be an increase in growth and employment, whilst at the same time receiving justification for his deficit reduction plan. He needs the coalition to be seen as a success, whilst at the same time appeasing the Tory Right and backbenchers. However, the Tories will be also desperate to gain an overall majority next time, but to do so they need to fulfil the above aims, and more. This will be considerably difficult. Despite extensive attempts to ‘detoxify’ the Tory brand, the Conservatives are still seen by many as ‘the nasty party’, especially as in these tough economic climes they still appear to large parts of the electorate to be the party of the affluent; calls for the 50p tax rate to be scrapped have been met with outcry. Cameron can rely on traditional Tory heartlands to deliver votes and MPs, but as with Tony Blair in 1997, the modernisation process means that he needs to attract swinging voters from the Centre ground; his desire to present himself as a “compassionate Conservative” and a “liberal Conservative” may be easier to apply with a more stable economy. Interestingly (and perhaps crucially if he wants to attract centrist voters), Cameron had promised to match New Labour’s public spending “pound for pound” before the global economic crisis; would this pledge, and others, be reinstated after 2015? Furthermore, voters need to feel reassured that the country is safe in the hands of the Conservatives; will jobs be created? Will growth increase? These questions are applicable now as well as in 2015.

For Ed Miliband to win, he needs to present to the country a coherent strategy on dealing with the economy, but crucially he also needs to define what the Labour party are now. On winning the leadership, Miliband declared that “New Labour is dead”, a claim that will go down well with activists and supporters, but (ideologically) perhaps not with the rest of the country. New Labour’s modernisation method attracted numerous Tory voters and “middle England”, and for Labour to win in 2015 they have to convince the people who voted Conservative in 2010. It looks a fair bet that Labour will drain support from the Liberal Democrats, notably student support as anger over tuition fees remains a contentious subject. This will not be enough. Many people deserted Labour because they felt that they had lost competence over the handling over the economy; David Cameron repeatedly targets them as the culprits for the lack of banking regulation and a ballooning deficit. They have benefited in the short term popularity stakes, but Tony Blair’s warning that Labour “won’t win again” if they “default to a Tory cutters, Lib Dem collaborators” mode is a real threat.  Miliband’s low personal ratings are not finite, but they are an indication at the moment that most voters currently cannot envisage him as Prime Minister. If the United Kingdom is indeed conservative with a small ‘c’, the influence of trade unionism over Miliband’s ascent to the Labour leadership will not go down well. Tactically, he is making the right move in distancing himself from the unions, but not only will the tag ‘Red Ed’ not subside with ease, but the still heavily influential trade union movement may yet hamper his plans over policy. The coalition are unpopular enough as things stand, but if their hopes for growth and prosperity fail, then a competent and confident opposition can throw them out; Labour need to be such an opposition.

For Nick Clegg to win, he needs nothing short of a miracle. “Cleggmania” was not enough to deliver the Liberal Democrats a majority in 2010, now they need a spark merely to deliver them a respectable return of MPs. For a start, Clegg’s “muscular liberalism” of trumpeting Lib Dem ‘victories’ in the coalition, along with pinpointing where they have neutralised the Tories, looks to have steadied the ship for now, and they will need to continue in this vein throughout the course of this parliament. Encouraging tribalism and ‘battles’ won’t endear the Lib Dems to voter’s hearts immediately, but this form of differentiation would hopefully strike a chord with people who feel the Lib Dems are nothing more than an imminent merger with the Conservatives. More crucially, they need to reconnect with many of the 7 million voters that they have lost since 2010. This will be much more difficult. Whilst Labour and the Liberal Democrats have shown that student support can waver in vicious cycles, the latter party are unlikely to be forgiven any time soon over their U-turn on tuition fees. To combat rather than retrieve this loss, they could veer rightwards to the ‘Orange Book’ instincts of the party, and try and attract coalition enthusiasts who admire their moderating influence; unfortunately coalition enthusiasts are hard to come by these days. The Liberal Democrats’ best hope is for their policies (with strong emphasis on ‘their’) to be seen as working, whilst at the same time widening the gap between themselves and the Conservatives so that come the 2015 Election, voters can see clear distance between the two. For the coalition to be seen as a success, Clegg needs to stay, for now. A change of leader just before polling day in 2015 could work (Tim Farron, the favourite, scores highly with the grass-roots), but in a precarious situation, this could be a significant gamble. In short, the Lib Dems need to rediscover what made them so popular, whilst at the same time proving to new voters that they are now a party of (and maybe even for) government.

It is clear that a lot of work needs to be done by each of the three main parties. It is virtually impossible for other political parties to be in the running for the country in 2015, but they can all play an important role as the ‘big three’ try to win; UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) can exploit strong anti-Europe sentiment and drain Tory support, whilst the Green Party can build on their 2010 success of electing their first MP by displacing the Lib Dems as the ‘radical’ party. Parties such as Plaid Cymru and the SNP (Scottish National Party) can play on nationalistic sentiment and damage the credibility of Labour, the Conservative and the Lib Dems in devolved administrations. Interestingly, 2015 could be the first election for many years where there is everything to lose for the three main parties. Labour could fail to buck the historical trend of facing wilderness years in opposition; the Tories could be marked with the ‘nasty party’ image again and suffer landslide defeats, and the Liberal Democrats could spell the end of three party politics, and be all but wiped out. On current form, Labour have the best chance, but it will be far from easy, and failure could be long lasting.

Who do I think will win? It is genuinely hard to call, with the numerous ‘what if’ factors being the key determiners. It narrows down to how well economically the coalition performs, and how competently Labour perform as the opposition. Rightly or wrongly, I predict a Labour victory. I cannot envisage another 36%-29%-23% split (Conservative-Labour-Lib Dem), as I believe the Lib Dems will find it very difficult to gain voters again; this offers an opportunity for much of their support to be drained by another party-most likely Labour. The unpopular deficit reduction policies will not be forgotten even if safer economic waters are found, and, as seen by numerous riots and demonstrations, significant anti-Tory sentiment could be mobilised. Labour also have the benefit of time in shaping their destiny, something which the Conservatives and Lib Dems can’t consider as much as they strive to make things work. I’m ever wary that events can change dramatically, and any prediction that I make now could be widely off the mark in 2015. However, for now I envisage a comfortable, but not emphatic, majority for Labour in 2015. I leave you with this to ponder for another time; can victory be achieved under Ed Miliband?
-Ben

Defining Social Democracy (guest post)


As with most things in the social and political sciences, definitions of ideological and theoretical positions that are 100% agreeable across the board are very hard to come across. Whilst in many ways this makes up part of what is so intriguing about studying social and political disciplines (the fun and depth of debate are always there ready to rise up!). It can nevertheless be said to be hard for a keen student of the disciplines to wade through all the contrasting explanations that seem to make up the same ideological or theoretical position. Indeed, the more I listen and read the more it becomes apparent that, although you should learn the positions of ideologies and their classic definitions you must be prepared to turn around at some point and take a step back. It must be all taken with a pinch of salt and an understanding that traditions overlap and that people and political parties cannot very easily be categorised. This is rather like the would-be composer who has learnt all the scales and chords that he feels he needs to make the music he wants to. However, when he comes to the writing of the music, he finds that he is too constrained by the shackles he has imposed on himself, and the only way out is to step back and free his creativity. 

Perhaps this is a slightly clumsy and elongated way of stating that ideology and theory within the social and political sciences are not exactly straightforward, and that I’m equally fascinated by it with every unexpected turn! However, I think this is possibly the biggest lesson I have taken from university so far; you cannot simply learn a definition and duplicate it as and when called upon. You need to search the terrain and scope out a broad range of perspectives both from within and from outside the particular ideological perspective you wish to scrutinise or engage with.  

With this in mind, and as this is blog is still in its infancy, for the rest of this post I’m going to attempt to outline my understanding of social democracy as the political ideology I most closely identify with.
In pretty general terms, I see social democracy and its manifestation and influence in government and policy, as offering (rather idealistically):
·         -A mixed economy that consists of a blend of private and publicly owned institutions
·        - A blend of co-operation and competition
·         -Regulation of the economy, particularly private institutions, in the interests of the least advantaged
·         -Progressive taxation policy
·         -A socially progressive outlook that (hopefully) suggests historic and traditional cultural and moral norms are far from fixed and limited in scope
·         -The welfare state
·         -Promotion of social justice and egalitarianism

Whilst we must be sceptical of whether such a definition of social democracy has or will ever exist in such a totality, I nevertheless think that taking such a definition and then comparing it to its closest relatives (in my opinion, democratic socialism and social liberalism) is fascinating in the context of my earlier discussions. Whilst some might regard the traditions as almost in a position of warfare (particularly social democracy and democratic socialism in terms of their stance on the position of capitalism in state organisation), others have however suggested that in some areas social democracy can be said to be somewhat of an umbrella term that encompasses both democratic socialism and social liberalism, despite the obvious links the two traditions hold in relation to socialism and liberalism respectively. I’m not sure I agree totally with either account, but there are certainly some interesting overlaps between the traditions.

I’ll take the basic building block of social liberalism as an example here. Social liberalism’s opening point seems to be an emphasis on the freedom of the individual to choose their own life path, taking firmly into account that individual nature and choice cannot and do not take place in a context void of all social influence. As such, it is the role of the state to ensure that the playing field is levelled sufficiently to allow all individuals the freedom to choose their own path in such a manner that means society is not restrictive. Broadly, social liberals argue that the state’s role is to provide and ensure equality of opportunity. In this way, I think this is certainly an example of confluence between social democracy and social liberalism.
One particular leftist criticism of this, however, might be that the focus on equality of opportunity does not go far enough, and rather the focus should be on both equality of opportunity and the monitoring of equality of outcome. However, whether or not equality of outcome is offered comparatively by social democracy itself is something of a very subjective nature and, as with anything, must be said to be reflective of the cultural and temporal context within which social democracy has been or is being applied. As such, the boundaries between seemingly distinct, yet closely positioned ideologies can be said to be far from clear.

-This was a guest post by Tom Douglass, who is studying Sociology at the University of Nottingham

Friday 7 October 2011

Social Democracy: its past, and if it has a future

Social Democracy, from an ideological perspective, emerged around the mid-twentieth century as an alternative to Socialism, seeking to ‘humanise’ Capitalism rather than abolishing it, and finding the balance between a market economy and a collectivised one. During the ‘long boom’ period from 1945 up to the 1970s, it appeared to have triumphed over Conservatism, and permanently ingrained key elements of welfarism within the state which still remain today. However, recession in the 1970s and 1980s brought a neo-liberal revival, with social democratic parties soon losing their electoral viability and credibility. In this essay, I will evaluate social democracy from a historical perspective, and then ask the question; does it have a future?

In terms of altering the role of the state, social democracy played a vital role. In the aftermath of World War 2, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a national hero, with approval ratings well above 80%, yet the Labour Party won in 1945 by a landslide; it was felt by the electorate that they would rebuild the country better than the Conservative Party. Labour had been unambiguous in campaigning for a welfare state “from the cradle to the grave”, along with universal and free healthcare, and the nationalisation of key industries. The creation of the National Health Service (NHS) enacted a comprehensive system free at the point of use, with even dentistry and prescriptions free at the time, and the major utilities of electricity, gas, coal, steel and railways brought under state control. Social democracy had emerged as an attempt to ‘humanise’, not abolish, capitalism, and with the rest of UK industry in private hands the ‘mixed economy’ was well established. Furthermore, Keynesianism grew in popularity during this period; the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes who believed in the government regulating ‘aggregate demand’ in the economy to deliver full employment. Despite Keynes being a Liberal, the term ‘Keynesian social democracy’ is a popular one to describe this period.

Important precedents were further set during the Presidential era of FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). Due to the 1929 Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression, classically liberal America was undergoing a major crisis; the voluntarism and ‘rugged individualist’ policies of incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover were not working, and unemployment reached as high a level as 25%, a stark contrast to the years of escalating boom during the ‘Roaring Twenties’. The comfortable election victory in 1932 for Democrat FDR underlined a major turning point; not only were the previously unstoppable Republicans comprehensively rejected by the public, but the role of the state was to change forever. FDR’s “New Deal” for the American people consisted of three criteria; relief, recovery and reform. Relief, in the form of unemployment relief and welfare measures; recovery, in the form of public works schemes and ‘pump priming’ in to the economy, and reform, with the action on new banking regulation and trade union acts.

It could be argued that the New Deal was more a form of social/American liberalism than social democracy, but its unprecedented steps nevertheless offer an overlap with social democracy. For the first time, a tangible welfare state was created in the USA; the ‘Social Security Act’ made use of payroll contributions to fund unemployment and sickness benefits (reminiscent of David Lloyd George’s National Insurance Act in Britain during the early 1900’s). The Wagner Act of 1935 gave employees the rights to collective bargaining and strike action without fear of dismissal from employers; trade unionism was also to be a key supporter (and some would say policy influencer) of the Labour party during the social democratic period. New Deal groups such as the PWA (Public Works Administration) and CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) were to employ as many as 5 million people, with federal money being used to fund numerous public works schemes which in turn provided employment. Further signs of the size of the state increasing and using its influence included the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which provided bank regulation (the banking industry had been one of many proponents of the 1929 Wall Street Crash) via the separation of investment and commercial banking and also federal deposit insurance. Furthermore, the 1935 ‘Wealth Tax Act’ sought to both increase government receipts and redistribute wealth through an increase in inheritance tax, a gift tax, a severely graduated income tax and a corporate income tax scaled according to income. From the 1920s days of pro-business, low taxation and minimal interference in the economy, this Act elicited a strong reversal, along with implementing a core social democratic policy of progressive taxation. During his time in office, FDR also consolidated a ‘New Deal coalition’ of labour unions, blue collar workers, minorities, farmers, white Southerners, people on relief and intellectuals; this coalition not only cemented solid electoral support for the Democratic Party, but it also included groups of people who had been largely ignored under previous administrations and doctrines. In terms of ideology, the New Deal may not necessarily have been a Social Democratic programme; from a historical and political level, it strongly changed the role of the state and society, as social democracy did.



Another key triumph of social democracy during this period was the general acceptance of ‘full employment’ as an economic policy in the UK, even when the Conservative Party was in power. Indeed, one academic at the time noted “we’re all planners now”. Taxation was not significantly reduced from highs of 90% until the Thatcher period, and the welfare state continued to grow in size. Keynesian democracy appeared to have triumphed; as Andrew Heywood states in his ‘Political Ideologies’ text it “harnessed the dynamism of the market without succumbing to the levels of inequality that (Karl) Marx believed would doom capitalism”. Precedents were further set in the USA with the ‘Great Society’ during the period of President Lyndon B Johnson. Federal funds were targeted at helping the poor in education and housing, new rights were given to minorities in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and government funded health programmes (Medicare and Medicaid) were created to help provide basic medical needs and insurance for the poor and aged. With these far-reaching reforms, and the electoral strength of other social democrat parties, free-market liberalism and Conservatism appeared to have diminished.


Despite this ‘long boom’ period, recession in the 1970s and 1980s ultimately brought an end to classical social democracy. The election of 1968 in the USA ended the New Deal coalition, and began to establish the Republicans as the dominant party again. Furthermore, the ‘Winter of Discontent’ in the UK in 1978 shattered Labour’s economic credibility, with constant disputes with trade unions and high inflation, not to mention the request for help of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) in 1976. Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives were elected with a decisive majority in 1979, and Keynesianism was at an end. Thatcher formed a strong ideological bond with Republican President Ronald Reagan, who both believed in cutting inflation (with unemployment arguably seen as a ‘necessary’ sacrifice), reducing public spending, ‘rolling back the state’, deregulation and privatisation. In both countries, income tax was drastically reduced; the top rate of 40% bequeathed by Thatcher at the end of her time in office was raised only in 2008 as a response to the global financial crisis (to 50%). These policies and legacies remain heavily divisive amongst people to this day, but there is little doubt that social democratic parties strongly lost their electoral viability during this period. The Labour Party lost four successive general elections between 1979 and 1992, with their strong leftward drift in 1983 resulting in a landslide for the Conservatives, and much like the Democrats in the USA were labelled as reckless ‘tax and spend’ parties. The SPD party in Germany and the French Socialist Party both endured long periods out of party with crushing defeats.

So, how was the electoral viability lost for social democracy? Part of the answer could even be attributed to the effects of social democracy itself. Both its welfarist policies and its redistributive economics resulted in a shrinkage of the working class, a key area of support for social democratic parties. Technological advancements and globalisation undermined its economic credibility, and the influence and rise in popularity of Thatcherism and Reaganism garnered strong support for the free market. As Conservatism had seemed defunct post-World War 2, now social democracy seemed irrelevant.
So does social democracy have a future? The ‘Third Way’, devised by Anthony Giddens, sought to bring renewal for social democracy, but with revisionism. The Third Way (or could it be called neo-social democracy?) created a more pragmatic viewpoint; a market economy as opposed to a mixed economy, equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome, a competition/market state over a social-reformist state, and crucially welfare-to-work (workfare) over the ‘cradle to grave’ concept. These views strongly influenced Tony Blair and the ‘New Labour Party’ in the mid-1990s, and Bill Clinton and the ‘New Democrats’. The Third Way offers us yet another divisive viewpoint. It could be seen as THE future of social democracy; its revival and redemption, with pragmatic and sensible reforms, not to mention electoral success (Tony Blair and New Labour won three consecutive general elections, including landslides in 1997 and 2001, whilst Bill Clinton became the first Democrat since FDR to win two consecutive elections). On the other hand, the Third Way could be seen as a betrayal of social democracy and therefore not its future; Blair moved Labour sharply to the Centre ground and in some cases even the Centre-Right, with his abolition of Clause IX in the Labour constitution (the commitment to nationalisation) a strongly symbolic move. On this evidence, you could argue either way for the future of social democracy, but few commentators would refer to New Labour’s time in office (1997-2010) as ‘socially democratic’.
Nevertheless, the global financial crisis of 2008 conjured up something of a Keynesian revival. Countries across the world, even including the USA with the right-wing leadership of George Bush jr, agreed on a consensus of the need for a ‘fiscal stimulus’ to boost the economy, with Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling (Prime Minister and Chancellor of the UK at the time) both pointing to Keynes as an influence. The top rate of tax, which had rigidly been kept at 40% by Brown as Chancellor under Tony Blair, was increased to 50%, and as of October 2011 is seen as a medium term solution. These elements may not indicate an imminent return to social democracy, but they reflect governments of numerous political persuasions taking a dynamic and active role in to the economy during a financial crisis, something which social democracy sought to do in the past.

In conclusion, I believe that classical-social democracy does not have a future. During its heyday, it proved to be strongly relevant and successful, but with economic and social changes worldwide, along with the 1980s neo-liberal revival, ‘true’ social democracy no longer contains serious electoral credibility. It may well be that the UK in particular is conservative with a small ‘c’, and if that is the case then a 1960s style social democratic party can never win a parliamentary majority. A left-wing Labour Party in the 1980s never came close to winning an election, and its success in the late 1990s and early 2000s were largely built on a strong shift rightwards on the political spectrum. For a social democrat like myself, this makes for a grim reflection. That is why it is important to learn from history in order to not only understand and comprehend social democracy’s successes and failures, but to also realise that trends are there to be bucked. As stated previously in this essay, Conservatism appeared to have lost all relevance after World War 2, and it certainly lost a great deal of influence until the 1970s. In this trail of thought, the current Coalition government in Britain should be viewed with great interest; the austere economic policies pursued in order to tackle the structural deficit are so far proving to be deeply unpopular with the public. If this economic gamble does not pay off, the Conservative Party could find itself out of power for another generation, thereby offering an opportunity to Labour or even the Liberal Democrats in some form. If a credible alternative can be found, social democracy may yet be revived; in what form is another matter.



-Ben

How extra funding should replace cuts to improve social justice in education

Since the global financial crisis of 2007, key and vital services, such as education, have been at risk. With the Coalition Government coming to power in May 2010, a series of austerity measures have been enacted, including an 80% cut to Higher Education, yet ‘free schools’ and academies have been readily enacted by Education minister Michael Gove. With equity in education already distorted, the hopes of a more equal educational society appear to have diminished. In this essay, I will explore the meaning of social justice in education as well as highlighting key inequitable concerns in education. Furthermore, I will argue how extra funding, as opposed to cuts, would improve social justice and equity in education, along with arguing for the importance of the Comprehensive school system.
When understanding the meaning of social justice and equity, I believe it is important to evaluate the context of key areas such as class, race and gender, along with the impact in these areas. The themes of equality opportunity and a fair teaching curriculum, along with consideration of social differences are significantly encompassed in social justice and equity. For example, does one’s background, along the lines of class/race/gender, affect opportunities both in education and in later life? In this sense, the purpose of Government and the ability to address wider societal and ideological issues become apparent. Furthermore, with Government changing hands, it seems a necessity for the incoming party to make a stamp on education, whether it is ideological or pragmatic; but is this of benefit to improving social justice and equity? In “Education for all” (Pring et al, 2009), it is noted that the UK is 24th out of 30 countries when it comes to participation amongst the 14-19 age group despite its strongly developed nature (with a participation rate of 79%). It is further noted that, despite its significant economic difficulties, participation in Greece has increased “from 62% in 1995 to 97% in 2005” (Pring et al, 2009), despite having had “historically...poor participation” (Pring et al, 2009). Therefore, when understanding social justice and equity, it is key to look at results in the face of rhetoric and action as well as the meaning of social justice and equity.

A key area of educational inequity is the impact of a child’s upbringing. With social class often a determiner of future success, it would seem that children from a working class background are “at a disadvantage before they even get to school” (Evans 2007, p.2). Despite New Labour possessing large majorities throughout most of their time in office, it could be said that their “third way” policy did not do enough to reverse the policies of the Conservative Party (such as a ‘market’ style system, where choice may be reserved for the privileged), with some of their policies forming a seemingly confusing amalgamation of  “neo-liberal authoritarian humanism”, linking both a “neo-conservative strand of New Right thinking” and “a social democratic stance” (Gewirtz 2002, p.156). Therefore, in this sense it could be said that despite the rhetoric and “fresh legislation at a frenetic pace” (Gewirtz 2002, p.155), the chance for better attainment and equity is diminished due to contradictory and interchangeable methods, despite Tony Blair’s pledge of “Education, education, education” as his top priority in office.

Another significant area of educational inequity is the recent educational cuts. The recent row over the increase of tuition fees at University to as much as £9000 a year towards the end of 2010 has not only divided MPs (with the Liberal Democrats a notable element due to their promise not to vote for an increase), but it has significantly decreased justification due to the 80% cut in the teaching budget, as opposed to the increase being an additional source of revenue for Higher Education. Linking back to the elements of participation noted in “Education for all” (Pring et al, 2009), it could be said that the combination of cuts and an increase in fees would significantly deter the poorest students from applying for University. Furthermore, the cut to Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), a support system of up to £30 a week for the poorest students to continue at A-Level, could have a detrimental effect on students taking and completing Sixth Form, and therefore being a significant obstacle to University. Despite the justification of cuts being made in the context of the structural deficit (estimated at over £140 billion), the ‘market system’ of choice being reserved for the privileged (an aspect of education not being progressive) could be said to be prominent, as the cuts would not impact upon the privileged as severely. Even during New Labour’s early years, to an extent market forces had “been preserved, with resources still distributed to schools primarily on a per capita basis” (Gewirtz 2002. p. 158). Therefore, the severity of educational cuts further highlights inequity in social justice, along with continuing inequitable trends.

As well as austerity measures having a key impact on social justice in education, inconsistent measures taken during times of relative economic well-being are also interesting aspects to highlight and consider. Tony Blair’s description of school selection in his autobiography highlights an inconsistent trend; he says that “the whole of the Labour Party programme since the 1960s had been to abolish academic selection and bring in comprehensive, non-selective schooling” (Blair 2010, p. 88), yet he refers to a member of his own party (Harriet Harman) selecting a grammar school for her children, despite them being “by and large cordially detested by the party”, with the decision “a real shocker” (Blair 2010, p.88). This highlights an educational problem as it shows that even those who have the power to make major decisions can have inconsistent and contradictory elements amongst themselves. Blair (2010) also states that equity in education should never be at the expense of academic excellence. To an extent, a concentration on academic excellence would entail and increase attainment, enabling equity and excellence to combine. However, if highlighting the importance of academic excellence means focusing resources on high performance schools with academic excellence at the expense of schools suffering from poor funding (and therefore low academic excellence), then the issue of inequity in education is highlighted and augmented further still.

Michael Gove’s introduction of ‘Academies’ further raises concerns about social justice in education. Academies are described as having “total freedom over their budgets, the curriculum and the length of the school day and term” (Shepherd and Wintour July 29th 2010, The Guardian). This would appear to be positive on the surface due to the increase in autonomy for schools, without mass intervention from top-down targets enacted by local authorities. However, “under Labour only failing schools were turned into academies”, possibly a sign of tackling underachievement, yet under the new proposals “schools rated outstanding will be allowed to quickly switch to academy status and have their applications pre-approved” (Shepherd and Wintour July 29th 2010, The Guardian). Furthermore, hundreds of the accepted academies “being offered a fast-track to academy status are the most socially exclusive”, with research by The Observer finding that “secondary schools judged as "outstanding" by Ofsted are taking 40% fewer poor pupils than the national average” (Asthana, Flyn, and Shepherd June 6th 2010, The Observer). Therefore, it would appear once again that academic excellence is the top priority of social justice, therefore highlighting how the academies can make social justice in education more inequitable, due to its socially exclusive nature and prioritizing of the schools that do well as opposed to offering extra help to the schools which suffer.
With social class being such a significant determiner of how children do in later life, even at a young age, I believe a more equitable approach would be to concentrate significant funding (a more redistributive approach) at this crucial stage in order to reverse the inevitable convention of relative failure in adult life. To an extent, the ‘Pupil Premium’, a Liberal Democrat policy enacted by the Coalition Government, has done this. It has focused £7 billion to be spent on the poorest students over the course of parliament (2010-2015), with 15 hours a week of free nursery education for the poorest two year olds. The money spent on the Pupil Premium would equate to roughly an extra £430 per student, to be used at the school’s discretion. However, despite Labour’s criticism of the policy being more of a political battle than anything else, the claim by shadow schools secretary Andy Burnham that “there is no extra money for schools”, and that the premium will “recycle funds from one school to another” to rob “Peter to pay Paul” (Curtis December 13th 2010, The Guardian p.1 and 2) nevertheless raises concerns about whether the premium goes far enough, and to what extent it aids attainment. Furthermore, as opposed to having a fixed sum placed upon focused funding, I believe that strong consideration, evidence and cooperation on should be enacted first, concentrating on concluding what and how much it will take for more equity and attainment to be achieved in education, before then eliciting a far more substantial sum as opposed to a ring-fenced or restricted figure.

Furthermore, I believe a more equitable approach would be to focus attention and performance on Comprehensive schools. The issue of private and public education can be very divisive, but it can be said to a considerable extent that with Comprehensives teaching students from all backgrounds (and regardless of ability), an equitable approach and method to teaching is significantly displayed. Comprehensives also pay dedicated attention to students with special needs, with teaching assistants (TA’s) paying individual attention to the students in question both inside and outside of lessons, therefore displaying a strong equitable approach as children are not being left behind despite difficulties. In addition, a study carried out for the government (by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and published by The Guardian states that, when tracking 8,000 A-Level candidates over a five year study, “a comprehensive pupil with the grades BBB is likely to perform as well in their university degree as an independent or grammar school pupil with 2 As and a B”, therefore strengthening “demands for university admissions tutors to give more favourable offers to candidates from comprehensives” (Vasagar December 3rd 2010, The Guardian). Therefore, the value of Comprehensive schools is highlighted, as stated by a research director in the article who says that Independent and Grammar schools receive significant support as they are being pushed to their limits, whereas with comprehensive pupils they aren't fulfilling their full potential, and this shows up at degree, where they fly” (Vasagar December 3rd 2010, The Guardian).

Overall, when observing the meaning of social justice in education, with background such a key determiner of future success and with clear dividing lines in terms of class/race/gender, concerns about how equitable the educational system is become strongly apparent. I strongly believe that my approach is more equitable as it focuses on key areas; not only is it more redistributive in its approach by not having a restrictive figure, but it focuses on a crucial period of a child’s educational development, where the tone is often set for them to either flourish or fail. Furthermore, it also focuses on a broader picture of Comprehensives, where to an extent there is already equity in terms of the system teaching children from all backgrounds. With a bleak economic climate as the Coalition Government took power in mid-2010, cuts to education, whilst eliciting stinging criticism, carry more weight and justification. However, the objective response to this is that educational development is a risk, with people in education being directly affected (much in a similar way to how cuts in the NHS would affect people concerned there). I believe it could be said that this elicits an argument that there are certain areas, especially in education, which should never be cut or restricted. With key concerns, such as attainment and performance, already an issue even during times of relative economic well-being, it would seem that these areas need more help than ever during times of financial hardship, as opposed to a ‘needs must’ approach. Therefore, for social justice in education to improve, consideration, both financial and evidential, needs to be strongly implemented and maintained.


-Ben

References
Asthana, A, Flyn, C and Shepherd, J (2010) Michael Gove's academies plan 'will exclude poorer children', The Observer, June 6th
Blair, T (2010), A Journey, Hutchinson, London
Curtis, P. (2010) Coalition’s extra pupil cash a con, says Labour, The Guardian, December 13th, p.1 and 2
Evans, G. (2007) Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain, Palgrave McMillan, Hampshire
Gerwirtz, S (2002) The Managerial School; Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, Routledge, USA/Canada
Pring, R., Hayward, G., Hodgson, A., Johnson, J., Keep, E., Oancea, A., Rees, G., Spours, K. and Wilde, S. (2009). Education for all: The future of education and training for 14-19 year olds. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shepherd, J and Wintour, P (2010) Michael Gove's academy plan under fire as scale of demand emerges, The Guardian, July 2010
Vasagar, J (2010) State school pupils 'do better at university', The Guardian, December 3rd

Tuesday 27 September 2011

A critique of New Labour: 1997-2010


The 1997 UK General Election secured a sensational landslide majority for the Labour Party after 18 years of Conservative rule. With a 179 seat majority over all other parties, virtually anything seemed possible. Labour, or indeed New Labour, radically redefined themselves in order to be electable after the long Thatcherite years, and this paid off. However, was this at the expense of principles; of implementing a genuine Centre-Left programme?

There is little doubt that Labour’s leftward drift under the influence of Michael Foot and Tony Benn in the early 80s significantly alienated them from the public. Their 1983 manifesto, a commitment to unilateral disarmament, nationalisation of all privatised utilities and the abolition of the House of Lords, was dubbed “the longest suicide note in history” by Labour MP Gerald Kaufman. Taking aside the hugely popular Falklands campaign, Margaret Thatcher had taken many unpopular decisions in Government, yet in the face of an out of touch Opposition, she secured a landslide. It would take another three Leaders (Neil Kinnock, John Smith and Tony Blair) to complete the move to the Centre ground and be electable again. Redesigned as ‘New Labour’, the party under Tony Blair ended the long standing ‘tax and spend’ stigma of the party (much as Bill Clinton did with the ‘New’ Democratic Party in the US), and symbolically abolished ‘Clause IV’; the commitment to wholesale nationalisation, or “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange”. No doubt these were divisive issues within the Labour ranks, but Blair could point to a first Labour landslide since 1945 and a return to Government since 1979 as justification. The issue is what happened next, or indeed what didn’t happen next.

A possibility to “mend the schism that occurred in progressive forces in British politics at the start of this (20th century) century” (quote from Blair, by Ashdown) was elaborated on by both Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown in their respective autobiographies. Despite Labour’s historic majority, a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and a Government majority of 269 over all other parties was seriously considered by both men. Ashdown stated he “had always believed that the best relationship between parties in partnership was to be in Government together”, with Blair expressing that “from the off, I wanted to have them (the Lib Dems) in the big tent”. From an ideological perspective, this could have worked. Blair says in his autobiography that he had gone out of his way to “pay tribute in my own political heritage to Lloyd George, Keynes and Beveridge”, a strong acknowledgment of prominent and historic Liberals. With Blair and Ashdown both describing the inevitable protests from the likes of John Prescott and Gordon Brown over such a deal, Blair muses that the Lib Dems “lacked the necessary fibre to govern”, preferring to be “honest critics”, whilst Ashdown concludes Blair did not seize the opportunity of the “golden hours”, and overestimated “his own powers”. In this sense, a consideration of what might have been and what didn’t happen can only be hypothetical; despite a willingness from both men to contemplate a coalition, we will not know for certain how close this came to reality.

In terms of policy, New Labour certainly adhered to Tory elements (a plan which brought New Labour traditionally Tory heartlands). They restricted spending levels for their first two years of power, and maintained the top level of income tax at 40%; increased to 50% only after the global financial crisis and after Tony Blair had left office. Also, perhaps reminiscent of Michael Howard’s “prison works” mantra, New Labour adopted the line “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” as policy. Despite these centrist, or even centre-right leanings, there were historic successes. Peace in Northern Ireland was achieved after centuries of struggle, along with the downfall of Milosevic in Kosovo and the implementation of the minimum wage (now supported by the Conservative Party after initial opposition). It is in this sense, however, that Blair appears far more at home in international than domestic affairs; Paddy Ashdown states Blair’s “hesitation on domestic affairs” interestingly “did not apply to international affairs”. However, despite Social Democracy entailing a mixture of public and private enterprise, Blair (who has repeatedly stated that he is a Social Democrat) did not oversee any major incorporation of public services in to his plans, and did little to reverse privatisation measures from the previous Government; Blair himself admits that despite disagreeing with John Major’s privatisation of Britain’s railways, he did not “want to waste money re-nationalising it”. Some policies appeared to form, as Gerwirtz states,  a seemingly confusing amalgamation of  “neo-liberal authoritarian humanism”, linking both a “neo-conservative strand of New Right thinking” and “a social democratic stance” (Gewirtz 2002, p.156). Furthermore, Blair stressed his intention not to “alienate business” in his autobiography, and won the support of the powerful media mogul Rupert Murdoch, the former Conservative supporter unlikely to be a champion of Social Democracy, and a sign of de-regulation drives to come.

Current Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe has said she briefly changed her allegiances to New Labour in 1997, believing Blair to be “socially liberal, but an economic tory”. The likes of Shaun Woodward MP (Conservative) were also converted, with the New Labour project’s domination of the Centre ground apparent. With this hegemony, the Liberal Democrats arguably became the most radical party of the three major parties, with their platform including raising the income tax threshold and providing a multi-billion pound pupil premium for disadvantaged pupils, as well as their trademark commitment to electoral reform. This goes some way to suggesting that the “schism” of the Centre-Left was not healed, with Nick Clegg in recent times claiming that the Lib Dems are the “true progressives” and the “vanguard of the progressive Centre-Left”. Furthermore, in Blair’s autobiography he frequently states his desire not to alienate the “middle England” vote which he so successfully garnered from 1997 onwards; as previously stated income tax was never raised in his tenure, and even indirect taxes such as National Insurance were raised minimally. Blair’s courting of Right wing media such as Rupert Murdoch’s empire gives the impression of the types of people he was willing to surround himself with; hardly Centre-Left progressives.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still heavily divisive issues to this day, and indeed are still ongoing. For New Labour and Blair in particular, it will always be a permanent and negative association. This, and arguably the lack of a Centre-Left platform, led many in the youth and student population to ditch New Labour for the Liberal Democrats (on an anti-Iraq war platform), arguably furthering the view that they became the most radical Party. New Labour’s introduction of top-up tuition fees (despite a promise not to do so) hastened this move. In an ironic reversal, the Liberal Democrats’ vote to increase tuition fees in 2010 (despite the promise not to do so and the policy of abolition), not to mention their Coalition with the Conservatives, has led the student population back to Labour, albeit with a new leader. Furthermore, the de-regulation drives during New Labour’s term of the markets and the banking industry were arguably key factors in exacerbating the financial crisis of 2007 onwards, although it was a global issue. In the present context, support appears to be returning to Labour. However, it is perhaps telling that in the 2010 Labour leadership contest, all five candidates rejected Tony Blair’s critique that Labour lost the 2010 Election because “they stopped being New Labour”, and all of the candidates appeared to strongly attempt to ‘move on’ from Blair and Brown.

In the same leadership contest, Diane Abbott claimed that 5 million people had stopped voting for Labour over the years from 1997; 1 million voted for other parties, whilst 4 million no longer vote at all. It is difficult to fully examine or make deductions from this demographic, but the aspect of apathy is certainly a strong component here; perhaps New Labour did not go far enough for many of the 4 million apathetic voters? New Labour stalwarts may well point to their long hegemony of Government in response to this; successive Conservative leaders faltered, and it was only after David Cameron’s succession of Michael Howard in 2005, and his shifting of the Tories closer to the Centre, that the Opposition looked like forming a Government. The Economy enjoyed a long boom period, leading Gordon Brown to proudly proclaim an “end to boom and bust”. Nevertheless, you are unlikely to find many glowing references of New Labour’s time in Government today, and the failure to reconnect with those 5 million lost votes was to cost them dear in 2010, and perhaps in the future too.

I believe that with the huge majorities obtained under Blair, New Labour had the potential to implement far reaching and meaningful reforms. However, it is arguable that he, as Ashdown states, failed to “seize the initiative” on the domestic agenda. Blair wanted to permanently alter the British landscape, as Margaret Thatcher had done, but perhaps for this very reason he was cautious in his approach for radical change. It seemed that the focus was often on the next Election and to not alienate the coalition of ‘middle England’ and wealthy donors in this approach. What do I mean by radical change, and the opportunity for more to be done? It entails many things. For a Social Democrat, a reversal of Thatcher’s neoliberal economic policies must surely have been a priority, yet Blair did little to change this; he himself admits he likes a “liberal economic” approach, and a trust in the markets. Furthermore, despite numerous top down targets, social mobility actually worsened in the period between 1997 and 2010. The target of eliminating child poverty appears ever more unlikely to be met, and on the education platform Blair says in his autobiography that equity in education should never be at the expense of academic excellence. On the constitutional platform, New Labour had a brilliant opportunity for electoral reform, with the Jenkins Commission recommending the use of the ‘AV+’ method to elect the House of Commons, yet Blair was not able to assert his authority over dissenters in his cabinet such as John Prescott and Gordon Brown. The issue of electing the House of Lords, currently an agenda for the incumbent Coalition Government, was another initiative not seized (although the 1999 House of Lords Act removed hereditary peers).

Labour’s move to the Centre also elicited both the loss and gain of voters. The capture of ‘middle England’ and former Tory voters reaped dividends in 1997, yet it is a strong proportion of the working class who will have felt hard done by, perhaps exclaiming as Ed Balls states that Labour “aren’t on our side”. The current Party policy of Labour to abolish tuition fees perhaps indicates that their introduction in the first place was a mistake, and Ed Miliband triumphed in his election as Leader on a platform to the Left of many of the candidates (including brother David) which emphasised the need to banish New Labour to the history books; gaining support from numerous prominent Trade Unions indicates how strong an influence they still possess in the Labour Party.

It is fair to say that Tony Blair, the figurehead of New Labour, is to this day intensely divisive in political discussions. When failures are listed, they often include a lack of economic and banking regulation, along with a controversial foreign policy and a negative impact on social mobility-all issues which a Centre-Left ideology (on the surface at least) would have eradicated. In this sense, New Labour could be deemed a failure in itself. However, their success in ending 18 years of Conservative rule, followed by a record 13 years in Government themselves, cannot be ignored. The sad truth could well be that, contrary to opinion that the UK is largely progressive (but politically divided), it is conservative with a small ‘c’, and only a battle for the Centre ground and the rejection of Keynesian principles can bring Electoral success, something which New Labour did very well with. Was New Labour progressive? In some cases, yes; the minimum wage, the windfall tax, the ‘Freedom of Information Act’. Were they Centre-Left? My opinion is that they rarely were, but their time in Government often transcended the left-right axis, and their success in hegemony may well discard my theory; this does not stop the theory from provoking interesting, controversial and inconclusive discussion.


-Ben

References
Ashdown, P “A Fortunate Life”, 2009, Aurum Press
Blair, T “A Journey”, 2010, Hutchinson
Gerwirtz, S (2002) The Managerial School; Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, Routledge, USA/Canada