Bring Back Public Toilets!

As I was trudging home yesterday I absent-mindedly picked up one of those useless free papers. I was outraged by the outrageous headline – Ryanair: we may charge £1 for loos. To make matters worse £1 was isolated in pillar-box red as if to highlight this affront to labour values, and to remind us this proposal comes from the Brown hating Michael O’Leary (chief executive of Ryan Air). What is the world coming to?

But, if the truth is told, going to the toilet is already a financial transaction in our society and our outrage should have occurred long ago. Ten years ago you would hear people grumbling as they walked the streets uncomfortably that there were no public toilets, but nowadays we simply accept this situation, like the lack of student grants. A generation will soon exist that haven’t seen a public toilet.

However, public toilets do exist in a few places, like public phone boxes and public lidos. In sleepy seaside towns they still seem to be a symbol of civic pride and these white (ish) blocks with two doors are an important part of an English beachscape.

If we are serious about citizenship and installing civic values perhaps the return of the public toilet is an important step. We can measure our success in producing a happy society by the cleanliness of the public toilet. If you go to Switzerland the pristine state of the public toilets reflects a society at ease with itself.

Even if public toilets are covered in graffiti they have their own value. How will future anthropologists’ research unpublished swear-words, social stigma and tensions without the walls of public toilets with their useful diagrams? In Northern Ireland I remember public toilets that revealed the political and religious tensions in different communities: telling the Pope or Mrs. Thatcher what to do depending on where you happened to need the toilet.

Historically, the public toilet was important for Labour’s re-building of the nation after the second world-war and every estate would have a public toilet built into it. Rich and poor, young and old, all used the same public toilets.

In fact, nowadays public amenities have all but gone and one of the only public spaces left in our society is the public library. When I worked in a library I would notice people nipping in to use the toilet because there is nowhere else they can go without buying a cappuccino: you cannot do anything, let alone go to the toilet, without spending money.

When the Fabian Society has another conference debate in which people suggest a policy idea, I will argue for the return of the public toilet. It may seem like a laughing matter, but during the course of this blog I have convinced myself that it really does matter. Ryanair and the headline writers of the London-Lite have only high-lighted this social issue and have given me something to be outraged about. Read more...

Bring Back Public Toilets!

As I was trudging home yesterday I absent-mindedly picked up one of those useless free papers. I was outraged by the outrageous headline – Ryanair: we may charge £1 for loos. To make matters worse £1 was isolated in pillar-box red as if to highlight this affront to labour values, and to remind us this proposal comes from the Brown hating Michael O’Leary (chief executive of Ryan Air). What is the world coming to?

But, if the truth is told, going to the toilet is already a financial transaction in our society and our outrage should have occurred long ago. Ten years ago you would hear people grumbling as they walked the streets uncomfortably that there were no public toilets, but nowadays we simply accept this situation, like the lack of student grants. A generation will soon exist that haven’t seen a public toilet.

However, public toilets do exist in a few places, like public phone boxes and public lidos. In sleepy seaside towns they still seem to be a symbol of civic pride and these white (ish) blocks with two doors are an important part of an English beachscape.

If we are serious about citizenship and installing civic values perhaps the return of the public toilet is an important step. We can measure our success in producing a happy society by the cleanliness of the public toilet. If you go to Switzerland the pristine state of the public toilets reflects a society at ease with itself.

Even if public toilets are covered in graffiti they have their own value. How will future anthropologists’ research unpublished swear-words, social stigma and tensions without the walls of public toilets with their useful diagrams? In Northern Ireland I remember public toilets that revealed the political and religious tensions in different communities: telling the Pope or Mrs. Thatcher what to do depending on where you happened to need the toilet.

Historically, the public toilet was important for Labour’s re-building of the nation after the second world-war and every estate would have a public toilet built into it. Rich and poor, young and old, all used the same public toilets.

In fact, nowadays public amenities have all but gone and one of the only public spaces left in our society is the public library. When I worked in a library I would notice people nipping in to use the toilet because there is nowhere else they can go without buying a cappuccino: you cannot do anything, let alone go to the toilet, without spending money.

When the Fabian Society has another conference debate in which people suggest a policy idea, I will argue for the return of the public toilet. It may seem like a laughing matter, but during the course of this blog I have convinced myself that it really does matter. Ryanair and the headline writers of the London-Lite have only high-lighted this social issue and have given me something to be outraged about. Read more...

Party politics and the Liberty Convention

The Convention on Modern Liberty takes place today.

We are among the eclectic range of organisations and voices brought together to take part, as the Fabians and Compass co-host a session on liberty and the left in London this afternoon.

The London event is a sold out all ticket affair, with further events in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff and Glasgow. But if you can't make it, there is set to be what looks like the most extensive online coverage - video streaming, blogging, twittering and much else besides - than has been attempted from any previous civic society event in the UK. That will be on
www.modernliberty.net , while many sites like Liberal Conspiracy will be taking part and no doubt rounding up some of the broader blogosphere reaction.

Some of those involved - including convention co-director Henry Porter have cast Labour as the principal villain of the story. Porter is a talented polemicist, who no doubt attracts many with the fierceness of his attacks on the government, and the persistence with which he writes the same column so often. Like many in the Labour party, including on its liberal wing, I sense in Porter's writing an allergy to the state similar to the David Cameron analysis (which risks a rather important baby and bathwater problem), and a tone of certainty in prosecuting the charge which seems to me to close down and make some necessary debates more difficult.

If that might make me an unwitting stooge of the authoritarian tendency, then I am expecting a robust, perhaps difficult, debate. (Some left voices have been sceptical about the convention, and been in turn accused of forming a 'backlash' against it. I don't see how anybody could deny that the Convention has taken pluralism seriously. I am personally rather more of a fan of Porter's co-director Anthony Barnett, former director of Charter'88 among other things. This is an impressive achievement which will do a good deal to make these issues more salient. If I might be sceptical about some of the centre-right or right-wing organisations or voices, then I am sure they too may doubt the Fabians have anything to contribute on civil liberties. Whether and how such an eclectic range of voices can create effective pressure might well be a problem that many civic society advocates would like to have).

Beyond the substantive issues of civil liberties, this reflects an important part of Labour's political problem - that it can struggle to even be part of a conversation with some important progressive constituences: that is something that needs to change. It might well be that civil liberties is now perhaps the most difficult of these issues, taking over from foreign policy. (The environment is difficult too, while Labour has a decent - and largely deserved - reservoir of trust with many campaigners on international development, and on domestic inequality and child poverty: where, even as they push for deeper and faster progress, many believe the government is motivated by their cause). Part of that is being able to disagree with respect.

But part of it would demand some policy changes. This is one of the areas where the Brown administration suggested "change" but has yet to deliver it. The Prime Minister gave a rich and sophisticated speech On Liberty in November 2007. The disappointment is that its spirit has not been reflected in the government's policies - notably on detention powers and on ID cards. And the promise of a new constitutional settlement has risked turning into a tidying-up exercise, and slipping from view as the recession takes centre stage.

Scrapping or postponing ID cards seems to me the substantive and symbolic move which is needed to put Labour back into the broader conversation about liberty, and how it should relate in Britain to other goals of democracy, equality, security and so on. (I have been arguing that for some time, but perhaps the recession offers the government the chance to get off the hook on pragmatic cost grounds. I hope my more cynical colleagues might at least note that, in narrow political terms, this is one of the issues that would prevent Labour being coalitionable with the LibDems in any future hung parliament, but before that this is an issue that could well cost progressive votes that they might need to deny the Tories the chance of a majority).

There are many Conservative voices taking part today too. That is good opposition politics. But how far does it go? I think one can draw a sharp contrast with Labour's experience in opposition in the 1980s and 1990s. That eventually led - and not without much difficulty and debate - during the 1997-2001 term to the most significant constitutional changes in British politics since 1918, because of the commitments Labour took into the 1997 election. Certainly, that record is imperfect and piecemeal. Labour has at times - on freedom of information, political funding and other issues - been caught in the contradictions of its own half measures, got very little credit for the advances made, and been whacked in ways that would not have been possible without its own reforms. Still, a good deal of it will endure.

What are the Conservatives offering? They have a critique of where we are now - though it is often ambiguous, sometimes shallow and combined with populist posturing on the Human Rights Act which suggests very different messages are being sent to different audiences.

The Conservatives came to power in 1979 after Lord Halisham had issued his famous warning against 'elective dictatorship'. And this week's Thatcher retrospectives will remind many that that they seemed somewhat less troubled by this notion after 1979.

What's different now? The Conservatives are a long way short of having the kind of sustained and coherent agenda on civil liberties which the LibDems can credibly claim to have, and need to do a good deal more to refute the charge of opportunism.

So let us see how far Conservatives today offer the Convention warm words - or also concrete constraints they would apply to any future Tory government. Read more...

Party politics and the Liberty Convention

The Convention on Modern Liberty takes place today.

We are among the eclectic range of organisations and voices brought together to take part, as the Fabians and Compass co-host a session on liberty and the left in London this afternoon.

The London event is a sold out all ticket affair, with further events in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff and Glasgow. But if you can't make it, there is set to be what looks like the most extensive online coverage - video streaming, blogging, twittering and much else besides - than has been attempted from any previous civic society event in the UK. That will be on
www.modernliberty.net , while many sites like Liberal Conspiracy will be taking part and no doubt rounding up some of the broader blogosphere reaction.

Some of those involved - including convention co-director Henry Porter have cast Labour as the principal villain of the story. Porter is a talented polemicist, who no doubt attracts many with the fierceness of his attacks on the government, and the persistence with which he writes the same column so often. Like many in the Labour party, including on its liberal wing, I sense in Porter's writing an allergy to the state similar to the David Cameron analysis (which risks a rather important baby and bathwater problem), and a tone of certainty in prosecuting the charge which seems to me to close down and make some necessary debates more difficult.

If that might make me an unwitting stooge of the authoritarian tendency, then I am expecting a robust, perhaps difficult, debate. (Some left voices have been sceptical about the convention, and been in turn accused of forming a 'backlash' against it. I don't see how anybody could deny that the Convention has taken pluralism seriously. I am personally rather more of a fan of Porter's co-director Anthony Barnett, former director of Charter'88 among other things. This is an impressive achievement which will do a good deal to make these issues more salient. If I might be sceptical about some of the centre-right or right-wing organisations or voices, then I am sure they too may doubt the Fabians have anything to contribute on civil liberties. Whether and how such an eclectic range of voices can create effective pressure might well be a problem that many civic society advocates would like to have).

Beyond the substantive issues of civil liberties, this reflects an important part of Labour's political problem - that it can struggle to even be part of a conversation with some important progressive constituences: that is something that needs to change. It might well be that civil liberties is now perhaps the most difficult of these issues, taking over from foreign policy. (The environment is difficult too, while Labour has a decent - and largely deserved - reservoir of trust with many campaigners on international development, and on domestic inequality and child poverty: where, even as they push for deeper and faster progress, many believe the government is motivated by their cause). Part of that is being able to disagree with respect.

But part of it would demand some policy changes. This is one of the areas where the Brown administration suggested "change" but has yet to deliver it. The Prime Minister gave a rich and sophisticated speech On Liberty in November 2007. The disappointment is that its spirit has not been reflected in the government's policies - notably on detention powers and on ID cards. And the promise of a new constitutional settlement has risked turning into a tidying-up exercise, and slipping from view as the recession takes centre stage.

Scrapping or postponing ID cards seems to me the substantive and symbolic move which is needed to put Labour back into the broader conversation about liberty, and how it should relate in Britain to other goals of democracy, equality, security and so on. (I have been arguing that for some time, but perhaps the recession offers the government the chance to get off the hook on pragmatic cost grounds. I hope my more cynical colleagues might at least note that, in narrow political terms, this is one of the issues that would prevent Labour being coalitionable with the LibDems in any future hung parliament, but before that this is an issue that could well cost progressive votes that they might need to deny the Tories the chance of a majority).

There are many Conservative voices taking part today too. That is good opposition politics. But how far does it go? I think one can draw a sharp contrast with Labour's experience in opposition in the 1980s and 1990s. That eventually led - and not without much difficulty and debate - during the 1997-2001 term to the most significant constitutional changes in British politics since 1918, because of the commitments Labour took into the 1997 election. Certainly, that record is imperfect and piecemeal. Labour has at times - on freedom of information, political funding and other issues - been caught in the contradictions of its own half measures, got very little credit for the advances made, and been whacked in ways that would not have been possible without its own reforms. Still, a good deal of it will endure.

What are the Conservatives offering? They have a critique of where we are now - though it is often ambiguous, sometimes shallow and combined with populist posturing on the Human Rights Act which suggests very different messages are being sent to different audiences.

The Conservatives came to power in 1979 after Lord Halisham had issued his famous warning against 'elective dictatorship'. And this week's Thatcher retrospectives will remind many that that they seemed somewhat less troubled by this notion after 1979.

What's different now? The Conservatives are a long way short of having the kind of sustained and coherent agenda on civil liberties which the LibDems can credibly claim to have, and need to do a good deal more to refute the charge of opportunism.

So let us see how far Conservatives today offer the Convention warm words - or also concrete constraints they would apply to any future Tory government. Read more...

Damian Green rebuts Mail's new Britishness test

ConservativeHome note "some excitement across the blogosphere today" at the Daily Mail's novel attempt to redefine British citizenship, though I don't get a credit as the source of this. (Daniel Finkelstein of The Times is also in the gobsmacked 'is the Mail really saying I'm not British' camp).

And, lo, Shadow Immigration Minister Mr Damian Green has issued a statement to make clear his disagreement with the Daily Mail's report.

"I regard anyone born in Britain as British, unless they choose to take another nationality. Whenever I speak to a large meeting I ask how many in the audience have at least one parent born outside the UK. Generally speaking, the younger the audience, the higher the percentage."

The pressure builds on Mr Dacre!

The effect is, however, slightly spoiled by the ConservativeHome thread which follows this welcome piece of 'ProgCon' rapid response.

Firstly, the point is fairly made that Mr Damian Green does rather skate over the detail of the 1981 British Nationality Act in his effort to be on the liberal side of the debate.

But, secondly, there is a lot of pretty awful xenophobia and some clear racism in the discussion. Some of it is from BNP interlopers, but not all of it. There's rather too much on horses, stables, dogs and cats. I'm not going to quote the worst of it, but a couple of examples.

To be British you have to be White. Enf of story.
...
my ancestors didn't fight in 2 world wars to give the country away to any Tom, Dick or Harry that happens to be born here."

There are a couple of decent Tory voices protesting the discussion - thank you Sally Roberts in particular for her challenges to a "dreadful thread". Of course, moderating open sites is difficult but I hope this will be something the ConHome site editors will look at and sort out tomorrow. Read more...

Damian Green rebuts Mail's new Britishness test

ConservativeHome note "some excitement across the blogosphere today" at the Daily Mail's novel attempt to redefine British citizenship, though I don't get a credit as the source of this. (Daniel Finkelstein of The Times is also in the gobsmacked 'is the Mail really saying I'm not British' camp).

And, lo, Shadow Immigration Minister Mr Damian Green has issued a statement to make clear his disagreement with the Daily Mail's report.

"I regard anyone born in Britain as British, unless they choose to take another nationality. Whenever I speak to a large meeting I ask how many in the audience have at least one parent born outside the UK. Generally speaking, the younger the audience, the higher the percentage."

The pressure builds on Mr Dacre!

The effect is, however, slightly spoiled by the ConservativeHome thread which follows this welcome piece of 'ProgCon' rapid response.

Firstly, the point is fairly made that Mr Damian Green does rather skate over the detail of the 1981 British Nationality Act in his effort to be on the liberal side of the debate.

But, secondly, there is a lot of pretty awful xenophobia and some clear racism in the discussion. Some of it is from BNP interlopers, but not all of it. There's rather too much on horses, stables, dogs and cats. I'm not going to quote the worst of it, but a couple of examples.

To be British you have to be White. Enf of story.
...
my ancestors didn't fight in 2 world wars to give the country away to any Tom, Dick or Harry that happens to be born here."

There are a couple of decent Tory voices protesting the discussion - thank you Sally Roberts in particular for her challenges to a "dreadful thread". Of course, moderating open sites is difficult but I hope this will be something the ConHome site editors will look at and sort out tomorrow. Read more...

Looking for a moral low ground

Taking photos up unsuspecting womens' skirts in public places must be a bit of a challenge- it must require a bit of thought, a bit of daring and a bit of luck. In addition, you’d need a warped sense of entitlement, a distinct lack of morality and some much skewed confidence.

The depressing thing is that many people (mostly men) will find ‘upskirting’ a trivial game. For many, women’s outrage will only add to the fun. There are apparently hundreds of photos and sites exhibiting them across the internet. A quick search left me livid.

It is horrifying that certain men find such ‘Happy-Snapping’ acceptable behaviour. I naively assumed most men would be equally incredulous but was astounded to discover it became such a popular pastime in Japan that companies amended their phones so that photo-taking makes a ompulsory shutter sound. That’s not a change brought about by only a handful of men.

Feminists these days are often incorrectly accused and subsequently mocked for having a sense of humour failure. This infuriating allegation belittles women’s sense of indignation at the same time as dismissing the basic fact that society still allows, and often encourages, men to enjoy power over women.

In addition to the large and obvious ways we see this (-unequal pay, violence against women etc), it is manifest in an infinite number of small and varied behaviours. ‘Upskirting’ is one of them.

Men are busy sneakily snapping the bottoms of women- and, more disturbingly, girls- that mostly remain blissfully unaware and therein lies the ‘kick’. It’s less about sex and more about power.

Either way ‘upskirting’ is an assault, and one that calls for criminalisation. Read more...

Looking for a moral low ground

Taking photos up unsuspecting womens' skirts in public places must be a bit of a challenge- it must require a bit of thought, a bit of daring and a bit of luck. In addition, you’d need a warped sense of entitlement, a distinct lack of morality and some much skewed confidence.

The depressing thing is that many people (mostly men) will find ‘upskirting’ a trivial game. For many, women’s outrage will only add to the fun. There are apparently hundreds of photos and sites exhibiting them across the internet. A quick search left me livid.

It is horrifying that certain men find such ‘Happy-Snapping’ acceptable behaviour. I naively assumed most men would be equally incredulous but was astounded to discover it became such a popular pastime in Japan that companies amended their phones so that photo-taking makes a ompulsory shutter sound. That’s not a change brought about by only a handful of men.

Feminists these days are often incorrectly accused and subsequently mocked for having a sense of humour failure. This infuriating allegation belittles women’s sense of indignation at the same time as dismissing the basic fact that society still allows, and often encourages, men to enjoy power over women.

In addition to the large and obvious ways we see this (-unequal pay, violence against women etc), it is manifest in an infinite number of small and varied behaviours. ‘Upskirting’ is one of them.

Men are busy sneakily snapping the bottoms of women- and, more disturbingly, girls- that mostly remain blissfully unaware and therein lies the ‘kick’. It’s less about sex and more about power.

Either way ‘upskirting’ is an assault, and one that calls for criminalisation. Read more...

Who is British now? Who do you think they are?

Under the new definition of Britishness, decided in the Daily Mail yesterday, our nation is likely to have to give back a veritable bagful of medals and honours.

Bizarrely, according to the Mail, children and grandchildren of immigrants to Britain should not in fact be considered British. Given this, no doubt we would have to give back a whole host of prizes awarded to the British. We have already worked this would cost us the heir to the throne, and his kids, and a Formula One champ.

Can anyone think of other nominations? I think we should be told. Comments on a postcard please... Read more...

Who is British now? Who do you think they are?

Under the new definition of Britishness, decided in the Daily Mail yesterday, our nation is likely to have to give back a veritable bagful of medals and honours.

Bizarrely, according to the Mail, children and grandchildren of immigrants to Britain should not in fact be considered British. Given this, no doubt we would have to give back a whole host of prizes awarded to the British. We have already worked this would cost us the heir to the throne, and his kids, and a Formula One champ.

Can anyone think of other nominations? I think we should be told. Comments on a postcard please... Read more...

Language matters

Stephen Farrington shares some excellent advice for the Daily Mail newsdesk on the nuances of our national custom and usage.

He notes that this appears in The Economist style guide.

Generation: take care. You can be a second-generation Frenchman, but if you are a second-generation immigrant that means you have left the country your parents came to.

Perhaps Mr Dacre will now adopt this sensible pro-integration stance too. Read more...

Language matters

Stephen Farrington shares some excellent advice for the Daily Mail newsdesk on the nuances of our national custom and usage.

He notes that this appears in The Economist style guide.

Generation: take care. You can be a second-generation Frenchman, but if you are a second-generation immigrant that means you have left the country your parents came to.

Perhaps Mr Dacre will now adopt this sensible pro-integration stance too. Read more...

Video: Roy Hattersley speech at Fabian Fighting Poverty conference

Read more...

Video: Roy Hattersley speech at Fabian Fighting Poverty conference

Read more...

"The World Bank needs reform to create a fairer society"

Guest post by veteran anti-poverty campaigner Peter Townsend, in the run-up to the G20 conference.

Reconstruction of the banking system must extend to the World Bank. Its influence is all-pervasive. Governments and pressure groups hang on its words. But its persisting failure to deal with the huge scale of poverty in the developing world, together with its failure to deal with, or even report, predatory corporate forces, including banking systems, places it at the storm-centre of world recovery and reform.

The bank does not have capability to lead recovery from deep recession. Getting rich quick has meant exploiting many millions on the lowest incomes and failing to satisfy their basic human rights. This subversive motive must be ascribed to the reach and dominance of neo-liberal economic ideology in the last 40 years.

The World Bank monolith has helped to implant neo-liberal ideology among governments, corporations and consumers, weaken the state and reinforce economic inequality and destitution. Intelligent and sophisticated staff have been driven by forces subservient to that neo-liberal philosophy. The Bank advocates disastrous policies, like its meagre and superficial anti-poverty policies, lends with anti-social discriminatory conditions, and has little experience or resources to invest grants directly in jobs, services and people.

After 1944 the Bretton Woods institutions turned out to be a pale shadow of Keynes’ intentions. Their total resources were less than a third of what he advised. Eligible countries were not entitled to automatic help. They had to contribute to a Fund to be eligible for membership to apply for loans – and which imposed stringent conditions. Membership was not universal; debtors had less independence, aid had strings, and the US remained predominantly in charge of those strings.

With public confidence in financial institutions at an all-time low, and expectations of major change in the air, the question of World Bank reform takes centre-stage. One change would be to measure the true extent of world poverty. In 1990 the bank affirmed that its dollar-a-day measure was only half the story. It failed to develop a more reliable and reproducible international measure. Over two decades the bank has also failed to correct its own poverty estimates reliably for inflation. As a result poverty has been seriously under-estimated.

A second change would be for the bank to adopt a different social development strategy. This would include job creation, new tax systems, staged international planning, accountable leadership, social security and other public services.

If a small percentage of the resources of global corporations was committed to social security, a minimum wage and the right to improved employment conditions in low income countries they could share the kind of stability across the world that companies and European governments achieved domestically a century ago.

That would mean the bank, corporations and NGOs keeping track of activities in subsidiaries and sub-contracted employment, and extending the same rights to those workers. New international company law, and more effective international taxation, would be necessary components. ‘Corporate social responsibility’ would acquire new meaning.

The global corporations should add one or two per cent of wage costs in different countries, for example, towards a universal child benefit to help banish malnutrition, poverty and premature child death, and encourage more schooling and access to health care. Employer contributions towards domestic social insurance schemes in the OECD countries could be applied to employer operations in low-income countries.

The strategy could satisfy the principal UN millennium goal of eliminating poverty, slowing or halting runaway social polarisation, mark the necessary reconciliation of market globalisation and public ownership and control; begin measured stages in the fulfilment of human rights; and thereby internationalise development.


Peter Townsend is one of the authors of From Workhouse to Welfare:, What Beatrice Webb’s 1909 Minority Report Can Teach Us Today, published by the Fabian Society on February 21. Read more...

"The World Bank needs reform to create a fairer society"

Guest post by veteran anti-poverty campaigner Peter Townsend, in the run-up to the G20 conference.

Reconstruction of the banking system must extend to the World Bank. Its influence is all-pervasive. Governments and pressure groups hang on its words. But its persisting failure to deal with the huge scale of poverty in the developing world, together with its failure to deal with, or even report, predatory corporate forces, including banking systems, places it at the storm-centre of world recovery and reform.

The bank does not have capability to lead recovery from deep recession. Getting rich quick has meant exploiting many millions on the lowest incomes and failing to satisfy their basic human rights. This subversive motive must be ascribed to the reach and dominance of neo-liberal economic ideology in the last 40 years.

The World Bank monolith has helped to implant neo-liberal ideology among governments, corporations and consumers, weaken the state and reinforce economic inequality and destitution. Intelligent and sophisticated staff have been driven by forces subservient to that neo-liberal philosophy. The Bank advocates disastrous policies, like its meagre and superficial anti-poverty policies, lends with anti-social discriminatory conditions, and has little experience or resources to invest grants directly in jobs, services and people.

After 1944 the Bretton Woods institutions turned out to be a pale shadow of Keynes’ intentions. Their total resources were less than a third of what he advised. Eligible countries were not entitled to automatic help. They had to contribute to a Fund to be eligible for membership to apply for loans – and which imposed stringent conditions. Membership was not universal; debtors had less independence, aid had strings, and the US remained predominantly in charge of those strings.

With public confidence in financial institutions at an all-time low, and expectations of major change in the air, the question of World Bank reform takes centre-stage. One change would be to measure the true extent of world poverty. In 1990 the bank affirmed that its dollar-a-day measure was only half the story. It failed to develop a more reliable and reproducible international measure. Over two decades the bank has also failed to correct its own poverty estimates reliably for inflation. As a result poverty has been seriously under-estimated.

A second change would be for the bank to adopt a different social development strategy. This would include job creation, new tax systems, staged international planning, accountable leadership, social security and other public services.

If a small percentage of the resources of global corporations was committed to social security, a minimum wage and the right to improved employment conditions in low income countries they could share the kind of stability across the world that companies and European governments achieved domestically a century ago.

That would mean the bank, corporations and NGOs keeping track of activities in subsidiaries and sub-contracted employment, and extending the same rights to those workers. New international company law, and more effective international taxation, would be necessary components. ‘Corporate social responsibility’ would acquire new meaning.

The global corporations should add one or two per cent of wage costs in different countries, for example, towards a universal child benefit to help banish malnutrition, poverty and premature child death, and encourage more schooling and access to health care. Employer contributions towards domestic social insurance schemes in the OECD countries could be applied to employer operations in low-income countries.

The strategy could satisfy the principal UN millennium goal of eliminating poverty, slowing or halting runaway social polarisation, mark the necessary reconciliation of market globalisation and public ownership and control; begin measured stages in the fulfilment of human rights; and thereby internationalise development.


Peter Townsend is one of the authors of From Workhouse to Welfare:, What Beatrice Webb’s 1909 Minority Report Can Teach Us Today, published by the Fabian Society on February 21. Read more...

Daily Mail in want of citizenship education

Yesterday's Daily Mail complained that the statistics of those who are "foreign born" in Britain are misleading because they fail to count the next two generations, born in Britain, as either foreign born or as "immigrants". This is, presumably, because they are neither.

What the Mail wants to know too is how the Office of National Statistics somehow got the idea that those born in this country as the children and grandchildren of immigrants are "British". Their confusion between place of birth, ethnic origin, nationality and citizenship might seem like jaw-dropping ignorance of our history and constitution from such a proud and patriotic newspaper, but I would much rather take it as a helpful reminder that - while the integration of immigrants and new Britons is important - citizenship education really needs to be for everybody if it is going to work. (The Mail newsdesk might need to do some swotting up).

Anyway, as announced on Liberal Conspiracy, I am writing to Mr Paul Dacre to see if he can help to clarify the issue. (But perhaps I should drop the appeasement reference when sending it in?)

Dear Mr Dacre,

I was disappointed to read reported in today’s Daily Mail that the newspaper regards it as a mistake to consider that the children or grandchildren of immigrants are British, but rather would classify us as “second or third generation immigrants”.

"although the figures from the Government’s Office for National Statistics show an increase in numbers of foreign born people they still fail to record the true impact of immigration because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants".

I hope that your proposed reclassification of Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry as not British, as second and third generation immigrants descended from the foreign-born Phillip, will not distress them too much.

But it does seem most ungrateful, when Winston Churchill was voted ‘greatest Briton’, to now strip him of that status because he had an American mother. (However strongly your newspaper disagreed with Churchill’s criticisms of appeasement in the 1930s, isn’t it now time to let bygones be bygones?)

Perhaps you could let us know who the Daily Mail thinks is truly British. I can see you probably think it is too late for my children - as “third generation immigrants”, currently aged under 3 - but perhaps there might be a tip or two they could pass on to their descendants.

So, given our shared interests in integration and citizenship, it would be terribly kind if you might let us know whether there is anything that those of us who were born here as British citizens could ever do so as to become British in your eyes.

Yours sincerely,

Sunder Katwala

The comments include a very funny response from Rob Blackie:

I am British under these criteria. But I’m a little worried that since both my parents have emigrated I might retrospectively cease to be British. Can the Mail reassure me?

Read more...

Daily Mail in want of citizenship education

Yesterday's Daily Mail complained that the statistics of those who are "foreign born" in Britain are misleading because they fail to count the next two generations, born in Britain, as either foreign born or as "immigrants". This is, presumably, because they are neither.

What the Mail wants to know too is how the Office of National Statistics somehow got the idea that those born in this country as the children and grandchildren of immigrants are "British". Their confusion between place of birth, ethnic origin, nationality and citizenship might seem like jaw-dropping ignorance of our history and constitution from such a proud and patriotic newspaper, but I would much rather take it as a helpful reminder that - while the integration of immigrants and new Britons is important - citizenship education really needs to be for everybody if it is going to work. (The Mail newsdesk might need to do some swotting up).

Anyway, as announced on Liberal Conspiracy, I am writing to Mr Paul Dacre to see if he can help to clarify the issue. (But perhaps I should drop the appeasement reference when sending it in?)

Dear Mr Dacre,

I was disappointed to read reported in today’s Daily Mail that the newspaper regards it as a mistake to consider that the children or grandchildren of immigrants are British, but rather would classify us as “second or third generation immigrants”.

"although the figures from the Government’s Office for National Statistics show an increase in numbers of foreign born people they still fail to record the true impact of immigration because they record their children as British rather than second or third generation immigrants".

I hope that your proposed reclassification of Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry as not British, as second and third generation immigrants descended from the foreign-born Phillip, will not distress them too much.

But it does seem most ungrateful, when Winston Churchill was voted ‘greatest Briton’, to now strip him of that status because he had an American mother. (However strongly your newspaper disagreed with Churchill’s criticisms of appeasement in the 1930s, isn’t it now time to let bygones be bygones?)

Perhaps you could let us know who the Daily Mail thinks is truly British. I can see you probably think it is too late for my children - as “third generation immigrants”, currently aged under 3 - but perhaps there might be a tip or two they could pass on to their descendants.

So, given our shared interests in integration and citizenship, it would be terribly kind if you might let us know whether there is anything that those of us who were born here as British citizens could ever do so as to become British in your eyes.

Yours sincerely,

Sunder Katwala

The comments include a very funny response from Rob Blackie:

I am British under these criteria. But I’m a little worried that since both my parents have emigrated I might retrospectively cease to be British. Can the Mail reassure me?

Read more...

We would like to offer our deepest sympathy...

The Fabian Society extends its deepest sympathy to the Cameron family after hearing the sad news of the death of David Cameron's son Ivan. Hopefully the family's wishes that it should be given privacy at this difficult time will be given the highest priority. Read more...

We would like to offer our deepest sympathy...

The Fabian Society extends its deepest sympathy to the Cameron family after hearing the sad news of the death of David Cameron's son Ivan. Hopefully the family's wishes that it should be given privacy at this difficult time will be given the highest priority. Read more...

Executive pay and financial regulation – it’s time to learn from the crisis

Progressive governments on both sides of the Atlantic are leading the way in clamping down on executive pay. Last week Barack Obama moved to cap the salaries of managers whose companies are receiving state support and to put restrictions on corporate severance packages. The British government has also firmly committed itself to ensuring that bonuses reflect performance. This deserves our firm support. High CEO bonuses for poor financial results are totally unacceptable. The crisis and the executive greed it has exposed show once again the need for a renewed debate on corporate social responsibility and is yet another example of the failure of self-regulation.

In September the European Parliament adopted a resolution based on my report on new and better regulation of the financial markets - covering all players including hedge funds and private equity. Despite European conservatives and liberals watering down the proposals, the Parliament agreed that reward packages should reflect losses as well as profits. It also calls for full and transparent disclosure of remuneration systems. Since then I have been in correspondence with President Barroso, who assures me that the European Commission will comply with the Parliament’s demands and will come forward with new regulation for all financial players. EU leaders meeting in Berlin last Sunday agreed that new regulation covering hedge funds and private equity should be an EU demand for the G20 meeting in London. We will find out this week whether the EU is prepared to do what it preaches, as Thursday marks the start of European Commission hearings on future regulation of hedge funds and private equity. I fear that Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner supposedly responsible, is still pushing self-regulation for private equity: this is just not good enough. Watch this space for European developments on new financial market rules. Read more...

Executive pay and financial regulation – it’s time to learn from the crisis

Progressive governments on both sides of the Atlantic are leading the way in clamping down on executive pay. Last week Barack Obama moved to cap the salaries of managers whose companies are receiving state support and to put restrictions on corporate severance packages. The British government has also firmly committed itself to ensuring that bonuses reflect performance. This deserves our firm support. High CEO bonuses for poor financial results are totally unacceptable. The crisis and the executive greed it has exposed show once again the need for a renewed debate on corporate social responsibility and is yet another example of the failure of self-regulation.

In September the European Parliament adopted a resolution based on my report on new and better regulation of the financial markets - covering all players including hedge funds and private equity. Despite European conservatives and liberals watering down the proposals, the Parliament agreed that reward packages should reflect losses as well as profits. It also calls for full and transparent disclosure of remuneration systems. Since then I have been in correspondence with President Barroso, who assures me that the European Commission will comply with the Parliament’s demands and will come forward with new regulation for all financial players. EU leaders meeting in Berlin last Sunday agreed that new regulation covering hedge funds and private equity should be an EU demand for the G20 meeting in London. We will find out this week whether the EU is prepared to do what it preaches, as Thursday marks the start of European Commission hearings on future regulation of hedge funds and private equity. I fear that Charlie McCreevy, the European Commissioner supposedly responsible, is still pushing self-regulation for private equity: this is just not good enough. Watch this space for European developments on new financial market rules. Read more...

Doing Politics Differently

Fabians and Next Left readers may well be interested in the Political Quarterly 2009 Lecture, where Tony Wright MP will speak on "Doing Politics Differently".

This is both the theme of the moment, and a perenially topical theme. Tony Wright has long been among the leading advocates of political and constitutional change in Parliament and in the Labour Party, something he has maintained despite - or, more probably, because of - his reputation as among the best informed voices inside Westminster, frequently using the Public Administration Select Committee to shine some light on how government and politics are changing.

The event, chaired by Peter Hennessey, is on Wednesday 4th March at 7pm - with the lecture to commence at 7.30pm - in the Macmillan Room, Portcullis House, London, SW1A 2LW.

We are advised that admission is free and open to all. Please RSVP to emma.anderson@zen.co.uk if you plan to attend. Read more...

Doing Politics Differently

Fabians and Next Left readers may well be interested in the Political Quarterly 2009 Lecture, where Tony Wright MP will speak on "Doing Politics Differently".

This is both the theme of the moment, and a perenially topical theme. Tony Wright has long been among the leading advocates of political and constitutional change in Parliament and in the Labour Party, something he has maintained despite - or, more probably, because of - his reputation as among the best informed voices inside Westminster, frequently using the Public Administration Select Committee to shine some light on how government and politics are changing.

The event, chaired by Peter Hennessey, is on Wednesday 4th March at 7pm - with the lecture to commence at 7.30pm - in the Macmillan Room, Portcullis House, London, SW1A 2LW.

We are advised that admission is free and open to all. Please RSVP to emma.anderson@zen.co.uk if you plan to attend. Read more...

It's political incorrectness gone mad!

Perhaps (sorry, Newsnight) the thing that the BBC does best is CBeebies. It is pretty much worth the licence fee on its own. For this parent, there is quite a difference between advertless, educative BBC programming and all the other children's channels out there on the digibox.

I wrote some time back about how one of its unsung achievements is the subtle approach to disability awareness and integration of the brilliant Justin Fisher (aka Mr Tumble).

Mr Tumble is a particular hero: the way he introduces all toddlers to sign language in Something Special, almost certainly without anybody noticing, might be as good a model of integration as we have anywhere in our society.

So let's hope that can help everybody to keep the latest 'controversy' in in its place. Sarah Ismail, blogging on Liberal Conspiracy is rightly disturbed by the "One-armed presenter is scaring children, parents tell BBC" headline in the Daily Mail, and offers a cogent defence of the excellent Cerrie Burnell.

But its good to hear too that the Mail's online commenters are so strongly on the side of the presenter.

Perhaps the Mail can say its just reporting on the story, rather than seeking to fuel the controversy and its report does include the presenter herself and various disability groups space to challenge the (nine) vexatious complaints made about her. being allowed to present

But, come on Daily Mail, here is a great chance to do the right thing. Why not follow up your report with a thundering editorial challenging the daft complaints, which leaves nobody in any doubt that - like your readers - you have come down on the right side of this issue.

Why, you could even say the complaints were 'political incorrectness gone mad'! Read more...

It's political incorrectness gone mad!

Perhaps (sorry, Newsnight) the thing that the BBC does best is CBeebies. It is pretty much worth the licence fee on its own. For this parent, there is quite a difference between advertless, educative BBC programming and all the other children's channels out there on the digibox.

I wrote some time back about how one of its unsung achievements is the subtle approach to disability awareness and integration of the brilliant Justin Fisher (aka Mr Tumble).

Mr Tumble is a particular hero: the way he introduces all toddlers to sign language in Something Special, almost certainly without anybody noticing, might be as good a model of integration as we have anywhere in our society.

So let's hope that can help everybody to keep the latest 'controversy' in in its place. Sarah Ismail, blogging on Liberal Conspiracy is rightly disturbed by the "One-armed presenter is scaring children, parents tell BBC" headline in the Daily Mail, and offers a cogent defence of the excellent Cerrie Burnell.

But its good to hear too that the Mail's online commenters are so strongly on the side of the presenter.

Perhaps the Mail can say its just reporting on the story, rather than seeking to fuel the controversy and its report does include the presenter herself and various disability groups space to challenge the (nine) vexatious complaints made about her. being allowed to present

But, come on Daily Mail, here is a great chance to do the right thing. Why not follow up your report with a thundering editorial challenging the daft complaints, which leaves nobody in any doubt that - like your readers - you have come down on the right side of this issue.

Why, you could even say the complaints were 'political incorrectness gone mad'! Read more...

Why term limits can't work in Britain

Trevor Phillips gives evidence to the Speaker's Conference today. His proposal, according to yesterday's Guardian, that MPs should not be able to serve more than four terms in Parliament sounds to me entirely unworkable.

Political system: Are there any examples of term limits being applied in Parliamentary democracies? I am not a fan anyway, but they depend on a US-style separation of powers to be used in either the executive or the legislative branch, or both. (One could do this for either the London Mayor, GLA or both). But applying term limits at the Parliamentary level without a separation of powers has bizarre results, often placing unreasonable restrictions on democratic choice.

Introducing term limits in Britain would probably have to involve some limits on Executive terms: for example, either limiting a Prime Minister to serving for two full Parliaments, or even any Cabinet Minister to eight years in total. Workable Parliamentary term limits would demand an entirely different political system. (This would also surely depend on fixed election dates: does the Parliament of 1964-66 count as one term? What about the short Parliament of 1974?)

History: That this modest proposal demands a complete transformation of the British political system can be seen in that it would have prevented Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Ted Heath, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher or Gordon Brown being Prime Minister. (For their parliamentary experience in each case, see this earlier post responding to Phillips' controversial comments in November). Attlee might just escape to 1950 on a technicality (if he can have 1935-45 as one term), while John Major could have governed to 1997 (but the Tories would have had to fight the election without him). Tony Blair would have had single term as premier before leaving Parliament in 2001 without defending his record before the voters.

In practice, no MP already entering their third term would make much sense as a new major party leader. There might be a case for more David Camerons and Nick Cleggs but to dictate that only a Hague (1997 version), Cameron or Clegg can be a party leader, and never a Ken Clarke (out by 1987), Gordon Brown or even a Charles Kennedy (both forced to depart in 2001) would be extremely odd.

Age: Would the proposal, by accelerating the turnover of seats, increase Parliamentary diversity? Page 83 of this House of Commons document outlines the previous experience of MPs elected in 2005. Only 5% of MPs had been in Parliament since before 1979 (over six terms) but Phillips' four term limit would have barred around 144 MPs who were re-elected in 2005, while a five term limit would have seen 98 additional forced retirements.

But this would also considerably lower the average age in Parliament (which was 51 in 2005). Parliament has a reputation for being middle-aged, but this would make it a more homogenous place dominated by thirty- and forty-somethings. Unless older candidates became considerably more likely to win new selections than at present, the proposal would significantly cull the number of MPs aged over 65, despite that being the fastest-growing section of the population. The Equality Commission is also responsible for challenging age discrimination. This proposal would tell MPs that they can not continue in a job purely on the grounds that they have more experience in the role than other potential candidates. (That would almost always apply to those over 50, though Phillips would have kicked Charles Kennedy out at 41 because he was elected at 23)

Ethnic and gender diversity: Paul Boateng, among the breakthrough class of 1987, chose to stand down after four terms in 2005. One feature of Phillips' proposal is that he would have insisted on the departure of Keith Vaz (then aged 48) and Dianne Abbott (then aged 51) at the last election too.

Given that only 2% of MPs elected in 1997 or before, were non-white, this would still on balance do something to accelerate ethnic diversity. (Only two of the 144 MPs forced to stand down in 2005 were black, and perhaps eight new black or Asian MPs might then have come in). But the MPs elected from 2005-10 come much closer to containing proportionate numbers of non-white MPs, and so this diversity effect would weaken in elections from 2025 and quite probably disappear entirely from 2030. At that point, term limits would be having a strong age effect but probably no race effect at all.

If that sounds like an advance worth making for now, it is worth observing that the reason it would make little or no difference is that progress has been made towards fair chances (without term limits). Any acceleration effect of term limits depends on the progress made in selections at the other end of the process.

With so few women in Parliament before 1992 - as this graph shows - Phillips' proposal would have sped up gender diversity if it had been in place for the last election or the next one. But this will have a much less dramatic impact by the election after next (2014-15 or before) as Phillips' proposal would then propose to bar from Parliament any of the 101 women MPs elected in 1997 who are still there. Again, this could still accelerate diversity more mildly - to the extent that the rate of new selections in 2015 was higher than that in 1997. (As would be the case, because only the Labour Party was selecting women in any significant numbers before 2001). But it will have a strong impact only if women are being selected in close to 50% of new selections (rather than 25%-35% as at present).

So, here, the difficult part is still the getting to 50% of new selections for women. If women were achieving 50% of selections, this proposal could achieve across four Parliaments what otherwise might take six.

Aiming at the wrong thing

This helps to capture the more important objection to the Phillips proposal. Both philosophically and practically, I think this term limits proposal is simply aiming at the wrong thing on Parliamentary diversity.

I would give priority to the goal of securing 'equal chances and no unfair barriers' for candidates of whatever background in Parliamentary selections. If we were to routinely achieve the selection of non-white candidates in around one in 12 (over 8%) and women in half (50%) of new selections, then candidates would have fair chances regardless of race or gender.

Where this is achieved, then the current pattern of political careers 'fair chances' would work itself fully through to a Parliament which looks like Britain within 25 years (five or six Parliaments). And, for me, that is in any event better understood as a desirable by-product of having achieved 'fair chances' more than it is 'an end in itself'. There may be a case for transforming entirely the British political system - but trying to achieve this in four rather than six Parliaments isn't it.

But, where 'fair chances' are not achieved, then Phillips' term limits won't achieve their goal, because the new cohorts of MPs will not contain fair numbers of black, Asian and women candidates. These will not, for example, do anything to get more working-class candidates, of any ethnicity or gender, into the Commons.

I have made my own submission to the Speaker's Conference reporting on the data: to me, the evidence suggests much discussion about progress on race as too pessimistic (there is a good case for deepening current approaches; which have made more difference than many people recognise) while we are often too complacent about gender (perhaps believing the job was done in 1997).

My cohort analysis of recent intakes and current selections shows that we have over the last decade seen much accelerated progress and are now close to fair chances for black and Asian candidates. However, we remain a long way off 50% of new selections going to women, with all parties selecting women in a quarter of selections, though doing better in safer seats.

If we can achieve fair chances, I am sceptical about seeking to accelerate their impact since, by definition, that requires an element of rough justice. That is an entirely different case to where further measures may still be justified to achieve fair chances and a level playing field. (With Labour well short of selecting women in 50% of cases, it seems a misnomer to talk of all women shortlists as 'positive discrimination').

The case either for or against term limits has to be primarily about either the gains or losses from a less established, and less experienced, political class. For me, that case has been primarily driven by anti-political sentiment: what we need to do is change the culture of party politics which is the gateway to Parliament and Government.

For those interested in Parliamentary diversity, the focus should remain on securing and sustaining fair chances for all candidates in Parliamentary selections. The term limits proposal is a red herring, and a quixotic tilting of windmills unless turned into a more open proposal for a constitutional revolution. Read more...

Why term limits can't work in Britain

Trevor Phillips gives evidence to the Speaker's Conference today. His proposal, according to yesterday's Guardian, that MPs should not be able to serve more than four terms in Parliament sounds to me entirely unworkable.

Political system: Are there any examples of term limits being applied in Parliamentary democracies? I am not a fan anyway, but they depend on a US-style separation of powers to be used in either the executive or the legislative branch, or both. (One could do this for either the London Mayor, GLA or both). But applying term limits at the Parliamentary level without a separation of powers has bizarre results, often placing unreasonable restrictions on democratic choice.

Introducing term limits in Britain would probably have to involve some limits on Executive terms: for example, either limiting a Prime Minister to serving for two full Parliaments, or even any Cabinet Minister to eight years in total. Workable Parliamentary term limits would demand an entirely different political system. (This would also surely depend on fixed election dates: does the Parliament of 1964-66 count as one term? What about the short Parliament of 1974?)

History: That this modest proposal demands a complete transformation of the British political system can be seen in that it would have prevented Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, Anthony Eden, Ted Heath, Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher or Gordon Brown being Prime Minister. (For their parliamentary experience in each case, see this earlier post responding to Phillips' controversial comments in November). Attlee might just escape to 1950 on a technicality (if he can have 1935-45 as one term), while John Major could have governed to 1997 (but the Tories would have had to fight the election without him). Tony Blair would have had single term as premier before leaving Parliament in 2001 without defending his record before the voters.

In practice, no MP already entering their third term would make much sense as a new major party leader. There might be a case for more David Camerons and Nick Cleggs but to dictate that only a Hague (1997 version), Cameron or Clegg can be a party leader, and never a Ken Clarke (out by 1987), Gordon Brown or even a Charles Kennedy (both forced to depart in 2001) would be extremely odd.

Age: Would the proposal, by accelerating the turnover of seats, increase Parliamentary diversity? Page 83 of this House of Commons document outlines the previous experience of MPs elected in 2005. Only 5% of MPs had been in Parliament since before 1979 (over six terms) but Phillips' four term limit would have barred around 144 MPs who were re-elected in 2005, while a five term limit would have seen 98 additional forced retirements.

But this would also considerably lower the average age in Parliament (which was 51 in 2005). Parliament has a reputation for being middle-aged, but this would make it a more homogenous place dominated by thirty- and forty-somethings. Unless older candidates became considerably more likely to win new selections than at present, the proposal would significantly cull the number of MPs aged over 65, despite that being the fastest-growing section of the population. The Equality Commission is also responsible for challenging age discrimination. This proposal would tell MPs that they can not continue in a job purely on the grounds that they have more experience in the role than other potential candidates. (That would almost always apply to those over 50, though Phillips would have kicked Charles Kennedy out at 41 because he was elected at 23)

Ethnic and gender diversity: Paul Boateng, among the breakthrough class of 1987, chose to stand down after four terms in 2005. One feature of Phillips' proposal is that he would have insisted on the departure of Keith Vaz (then aged 48) and Dianne Abbott (then aged 51) at the last election too.

Given that only 2% of MPs elected in 1997 or before, were non-white, this would still on balance do something to accelerate ethnic diversity. (Only two of the 144 MPs forced to stand down in 2005 were black, and perhaps eight new black or Asian MPs might then have come in). But the MPs elected from 2005-10 come much closer to containing proportionate numbers of non-white MPs, and so this diversity effect would weaken in elections from 2025 and quite probably disappear entirely from 2030. At that point, term limits would be having a strong age effect but probably no race effect at all.

If that sounds like an advance worth making for now, it is worth observing that the reason it would make little or no difference is that progress has been made towards fair chances (without term limits). Any acceleration effect of term limits depends on the progress made in selections at the other end of the process.

With so few women in Parliament before 1992 - as this graph shows - Phillips' proposal would have sped up gender diversity if it had been in place for the last election or the next one. But this will have a much less dramatic impact by the election after next (2014-15 or before) as Phillips' proposal would then propose to bar from Parliament any of the 101 women MPs elected in 1997 who are still there. Again, this could still accelerate diversity more mildly - to the extent that the rate of new selections in 2015 was higher than that in 1997. (As would be the case, because only the Labour Party was selecting women in any significant numbers before 2001). But it will have a strong impact only if women are being selected in close to 50% of new selections (rather than 25%-35% as at present).

So, here, the difficult part is still the getting to 50% of new selections for women. If women were achieving 50% of selections, this proposal could achieve across four Parliaments what otherwise might take six.

Aiming at the wrong thing

This helps to capture the more important objection to the Phillips proposal. Both philosophically and practically, I think this term limits proposal is simply aiming at the wrong thing on Parliamentary diversity.

I would give priority to the goal of securing 'equal chances and no unfair barriers' for candidates of whatever background in Parliamentary selections. If we were to routinely achieve the selection of non-white candidates in around one in 12 (over 8%) and women in half (50%) of new selections, then candidates would have fair chances regardless of race or gender.

Where this is achieved, then the current pattern of political careers 'fair chances' would work itself fully through to a Parliament which looks like Britain within 25 years (five or six Parliaments). And, for me, that is in any event better understood as a desirable by-product of having achieved 'fair chances' more than it is 'an end in itself'. There may be a case for transforming entirely the British political system - but trying to achieve this in four rather than six Parliaments isn't it.

But, where 'fair chances' are not achieved, then Phillips' term limits won't achieve their goal, because the new cohorts of MPs will not contain fair numbers of black, Asian and women candidates. These will not, for example, do anything to get more working-class candidates, of any ethnicity or gender, into the Commons.

I have made my own submission to the Speaker's Conference reporting on the data: to me, the evidence suggests much discussion about progress on race as too pessimistic (there is a good case for deepening current approaches; which have made more difference than many people recognise) while we are often too complacent about gender (perhaps believing the job was done in 1997).

My cohort analysis of recent intakes and current selections shows that we have over the last decade seen much accelerated progress and are now close to fair chances for black and Asian candidates. However, we remain a long way off 50% of new selections going to women, with all parties selecting women in a quarter of selections, though doing better in safer seats.

If we can achieve fair chances, I am sceptical about seeking to accelerate their impact since, by definition, that requires an element of rough justice. That is an entirely different case to where further measures may still be justified to achieve fair chances and a level playing field. (With Labour well short of selecting women in 50% of cases, it seems a misnomer to talk of all women shortlists as 'positive discrimination').

The case either for or against term limits has to be primarily about either the gains or losses from a less established, and less experienced, political class. For me, that case has been primarily driven by anti-political sentiment: what we need to do is change the culture of party politics which is the gateway to Parliament and Government.

For those interested in Parliamentary diversity, the focus should remain on securing and sustaining fair chances for all candidates in Parliamentary selections. The term limits proposal is a red herring, and a quixotic tilting of windmills unless turned into a more open proposal for a constitutional revolution. Read more...

10 Years from Lawrence - Race still matters

Today’s Government report looking at issues of race equality in our criminal justice system is sobering. It follows several others that highlight the lack of substantial progress.
Black men are still seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Ethnic minority groups are arrested over three times as much as white communities and account for around 25% of the prison population. Just 3.5% of police officers and 4% of prison staff are from an ethnic minority background. Just 3% of the judiciary are from an ethnic minority and the vast majority of these are concentrated at the lower end.
People have been so keen to pronounce the concept of ‘institutional racism’ dead, that they miss the glaring evidence of inequality that still exists. This demonstrates a lack of understanding about what we mean by the term. It is not that the Metropolitan Police was or is full of racists, but that organisationally, it simply could not treat ethnic minorities as well as it treated white people. Stemming from the more radical elements of the US civil rights movement, ‘institutional racism’ is about collective failure not individual malfeasance.
Given the statistics outlined above, surely no-one could claim that our public services, let alone the police, are not still guilty of this collective failure.
The problem I feel with the term is that it tended to allow people to think that it wasn’t about them. It amounted to an opportunity to blame the inanimate object of the institution they worked for rather than the individuals whom it collectively comprised. Rather perversely, the terminology of ‘institutional racism’ became a barrier for real change.
When I was at the Commission for Racial Equality, I used to prefer the term ‘institutional complacency’ to describe many of the attitudes I came across in the public sector. Because people, be they senior civil servants, teachers or senior police officers, tended to have liberal sensibilities themselves and be genuinely committed to greater equality, they failed to see how anything they did might work against this. This became the justification for not following race relations legislation or not engaging properly with marginalised communities.
The results of such complacency are seen in the inequality that is rife today. The danger is that in the rush to bury ‘institutional racism’, we ignore the very real challenges we still face. We may be generally more racially tolerant but economic hardship may yet be exploited to fan the flames of racial discontent. And in that discontent, it will once again be issues of race and faith that are the dividing lines.
Pronouncements of success are also in jarring juxtaposition with the recent success of the BNP in Council by-elections and Peter Hain’s warnings about the party winning seats in this year’s European elections. Indeed, he may well have underestimated its chances. As well as potential success in Yorkshire and the North West, low turnout and the collapse of the Labour vote could see the BNP winning seats in the West Midlands (remember Kilroy?) and repeating its success in last year’s London elections.
This is no time for complacency. Read more...

10 Years from Lawrence - Race still matters

Today’s Government report looking at issues of race equality in our criminal justice system is sobering. It follows several others that highlight the lack of substantial progress.
Black men are still seven times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Ethnic minority groups are arrested over three times as much as white communities and account for around 25% of the prison population. Just 3.5% of police officers and 4% of prison staff are from an ethnic minority background. Just 3% of the judiciary are from an ethnic minority and the vast majority of these are concentrated at the lower end.
People have been so keen to pronounce the concept of ‘institutional racism’ dead, that they miss the glaring evidence of inequality that still exists. This demonstrates a lack of understanding about what we mean by the term. It is not that the Metropolitan Police was or is full of racists, but that organisationally, it simply could not treat ethnic minorities as well as it treated white people. Stemming from the more radical elements of the US civil rights movement, ‘institutional racism’ is about collective failure not individual malfeasance.
Given the statistics outlined above, surely no-one could claim that our public services, let alone the police, are not still guilty of this collective failure.
The problem I feel with the term is that it tended to allow people to think that it wasn’t about them. It amounted to an opportunity to blame the inanimate object of the institution they worked for rather than the individuals whom it collectively comprised. Rather perversely, the terminology of ‘institutional racism’ became a barrier for real change.
When I was at the Commission for Racial Equality, I used to prefer the term ‘institutional complacency’ to describe many of the attitudes I came across in the public sector. Because people, be they senior civil servants, teachers or senior police officers, tended to have liberal sensibilities themselves and be genuinely committed to greater equality, they failed to see how anything they did might work against this. This became the justification for not following race relations legislation or not engaging properly with marginalised communities.
The results of such complacency are seen in the inequality that is rife today. The danger is that in the rush to bury ‘institutional racism’, we ignore the very real challenges we still face. We may be generally more racially tolerant but economic hardship may yet be exploited to fan the flames of racial discontent. And in that discontent, it will once again be issues of race and faith that are the dividing lines.
Pronouncements of success are also in jarring juxtaposition with the recent success of the BNP in Council by-elections and Peter Hain’s warnings about the party winning seats in this year’s European elections. Indeed, he may well have underestimated its chances. As well as potential success in Yorkshire and the North West, low turnout and the collapse of the Labour vote could see the BNP winning seats in the West Midlands (remember Kilroy?) and repeating its success in last year’s London elections.
This is no time for complacency. Read more...

Chris Mullin in conversation with Michael White

Extracts from Chris Mullin's diaries 'A View from the foothills' are serialised in today's Mail on Sunday.

This promises to be one of the most enjoyable political books of the year. The lack of a smoking gun is indicated not just by Mullin's self-deprecating title for his wry and witty observational diary, but also by 'Day Prescott came to work in odd shoes' being in the standfirst of their frontpage splash. The MoS draws comparisons with Alan Clark, though the extracts suggest more of a Yes Minister experience. Number 10's engagement, through Anji Hunter, in the Leylandi hedge issue is given a good deal of space, somewhat ironically given that this was doubtless driven primarily by fear of the Dail Mail reaction.

The Fabians will host Chris Mullin in conversation with Michael White in Westminster on Wednesday 18th March, the week of publication. (The book will also be the Radio Four book of the week that week). Places are by registration: contact rosie.clayton@fabian-society.org.uk if you would like to attend.

Today's extract begins with Mullin wondering whether he should give up the chairmanship of the Home Affairs select committee for the bottom rung in John Prescott's mega-department, and ends with his being reshuffled to a role at DFID which seems more likely to be a chance to do something useful.

I have been reshuffled. As I was getting ready to go for the train, my private office called to say the Prime Minister was looking for me. The Man called and asked if I would like to replace George Foulkes at International Development. I replied: 'Nothing would give me more pleasure than helping to redistribute the wealth of the middle classes to the poorest people in the world.'
A brief silence and then a chuckle. 'Ah, Chris, that's not quite how it works.'
'Don't worry, Tony, I'll be discreet.' And that was that. My career as the lowest form of life in JP's empire is over. I am now the lowest form of life in a smaller, but more agreeable department.

Read more...

Chris Mullin in conversation with Michael White

Extracts from Chris Mullin's diaries 'A View from the foothills' are serialised in today's Mail on Sunday.

This promises to be one of the most enjoyable political books of the year. The lack of a smoking gun is indicated not just by Mullin's self-deprecating title for his wry and witty observational diary, but also by 'Day Prescott came to work in odd shoes' being in the standfirst of their frontpage splash. The MoS draws comparisons with Alan Clark, though the extracts suggest more of a Yes Minister experience. Number 10's engagement, through Anji Hunter, in the Leylandi hedge issue is given a good deal of space, somewhat ironically given that this was doubtless driven primarily by fear of the Dail Mail reaction.

The Fabians will host Chris Mullin in conversation with Michael White in Westminster on Wednesday 18th March, the week of publication. (The book will also be the Radio Four book of the week that week). Places are by registration: contact rosie.clayton@fabian-society.org.uk if you would like to attend.

Today's extract begins with Mullin wondering whether he should give up the chairmanship of the Home Affairs select committee for the bottom rung in John Prescott's mega-department, and ends with his being reshuffled to a role at DFID which seems more likely to be a chance to do something useful.

I have been reshuffled. As I was getting ready to go for the train, my private office called to say the Prime Minister was looking for me. The Man called and asked if I would like to replace George Foulkes at International Development. I replied: 'Nothing would give me more pleasure than helping to redistribute the wealth of the middle classes to the poorest people in the world.'
A brief silence and then a chuckle. 'Ah, Chris, that's not quite how it works.'
'Don't worry, Tony, I'll be discreet.' And that was that. My career as the lowest form of life in JP's empire is over. I am now the lowest form of life in a smaller, but more agreeable department.

Read more...

'Community organising is the answer'

Neil Jameson of London Citizens is speaking to the Fabian/Webb centenary conference at LSE in the session on how coalitions for change are built. 'We only speak at living wage campuses - so we can only speak in London here at LSE and at QMW', he said.

Jameson made a passionate and effective pitch for community organising's role in

'We have found nirvana. Community organising is the answer to globalisation. It is the answer to the collapse of politics. The issue for us is the governance of the city. Public-facing is what we do. We are not particularly focused with governments or with policy. But we are obsessed with civil society'.

The election of a community organiser to the White House has increased the interest of the media, but mainly in America, he said. A new move in the UK was the creation of a community organiser's guild.

The pockets of power in society needed to be connected together - and faith communities and institutions would often provide the glue, he said.

The institutions of faith and the institutions of labour are the last surviving remnants of a democratic society, along with the charities and voluntary organisations. But the voluntary organisations are the weakest of the three; the trade unions are the next weakest. Faith is, pragmatically, strong. These are pockets of power, and if you can connect this Church to this Church to this Mosque on the things they agree on, then you can connect those pockets of power'

'What they agree on is never ideology, of course', said Jameson. 'What we have pioneered is the politics of assembly. There is no problem of disengagement from that politics. If you get a full room, then you can make things happen'.

This would, Jameson said, bring back the spirit of progressive politics of the late 19th and early 20th century.

'In the Webbs' time, women had no vote. All they could do was march up and down with banners. It doesn't have to all be about Westminster.

And he argued too that the Webbs had a major impact but depended on the tensions created in society since the 1880s. "The Webbs did the business and seized the moment. We must honour consistently too the labourers, the workers, the priests who created the tension which allowed politics to change", he said. Read more...

'Community organising is the answer'

Neil Jameson of London Citizens is speaking to the Fabian/Webb centenary conference at LSE in the session on how coalitions for change are built. 'We only speak at living wage campuses - so we can only speak in London here at LSE and at QMW', he said.

Jameson made a passionate and effective pitch for community organising's role in

'We have found nirvana. Community organising is the answer to globalisation. It is the answer to the collapse of politics. The issue for us is the governance of the city. Public-facing is what we do. We are not particularly focused with governments or with policy. But we are obsessed with civil society'.

The election of a community organiser to the White House has increased the interest of the media, but mainly in America, he said. A new move in the UK was the creation of a community organiser's guild.

The pockets of power in society needed to be connected together - and faith communities and institutions would often provide the glue, he said.

The institutions of faith and the institutions of labour are the last surviving remnants of a democratic society, along with the charities and voluntary organisations. But the voluntary organisations are the weakest of the three; the trade unions are the next weakest. Faith is, pragmatically, strong. These are pockets of power, and if you can connect this Church to this Church to this Mosque on the things they agree on, then you can connect those pockets of power'

'What they agree on is never ideology, of course', said Jameson. 'What we have pioneered is the politics of assembly. There is no problem of disengagement from that politics. If you get a full room, then you can make things happen'.

This would, Jameson said, bring back the spirit of progressive politics of the late 19th and early 20th century.

'In the Webbs' time, women had no vote. All they could do was march up and down with banners. It doesn't have to all be about Westminster.

And he argued too that the Webbs had a major impact but depended on the tensions created in society since the 1880s. "The Webbs did the business and seized the moment. We must honour consistently too the labourers, the workers, the priests who created the tension which allowed politics to change", he said. Read more...

Townsend: Refocus on inequalities and World Bank

Veteran anti-poverty campaigner Peter Townsend said after looking at domestic banks and their weaknesses, it was time to look at the inextricable links between the domestic and international economies.
There were examples of this every day, he said, just this week there had been the announcement of job cuts in Swindon because of the problems going on with Honda in Japan.
Townsend said the key organisation that he would like to "take a bit of stick to" was the World Bank, and part of his interest has arisen because of work on child poverty around the world.
If you took a look at the GDP of the 53 low income countries in the world it was less than the total of the income of the five biggest international companies, he pointed out in a speech that identified the weaknesses of the World Bank.
The World Bank had not achieved reductions in child poverty across the world, he said at the Fabian conference.
Then he went on to point to an increasingly lack of transparency about the actions of transnational companies, partly because of the dismantling of three UN bodies that used to track this, he argued.
Townsend, a LSE lecturer, also argued for decent labour conditions down the line, among subsidaries of big companies, and public awareness of this. Read more...

Townsend: Refocus on inequalities and World Bank

Veteran anti-poverty campaigner Peter Townsend said after looking at domestic banks and their weaknesses, it was time to look at the inextricable links between the domestic and international economies.
There were examples of this every day, he said, just this week there had been the announcement of job cuts in Swindon because of the problems going on with Honda in Japan.
Townsend said the key organisation that he would like to "take a bit of stick to" was the World Bank, and part of his interest has arisen because of work on child poverty around the world.
If you took a look at the GDP of the 53 low income countries in the world it was less than the total of the income of the five biggest international companies, he pointed out in a speech that identified the weaknesses of the World Bank.
The World Bank had not achieved reductions in child poverty across the world, he said at the Fabian conference.
Then he went on to point to an increasingly lack of transparency about the actions of transnational companies, partly because of the dismantling of three UN bodies that used to track this, he argued.
Townsend, a LSE lecturer, also argued for decent labour conditions down the line, among subsidaries of big companies, and public awareness of this. Read more...