Antics Spring 2023 - Broken Britain: The Task Ahead for Labour

Spring 2023

THE TASK AHEAD FOR LABOUR

© 2023 Young Fabians

Anticipations: Spring 2023

Broken Britain: The Task Ahead for Labour

First published March 2023.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher or editor, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law, where the source of information is acknowledged as this publication.

Please send a copy of the document in which this publication is used or quoted to the publisher and editor. For permission requests, write to the publisher or editor, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator”.

Like all publications of the Fabian Society, this report represents not the collective views of the Society, nor necessarily the views of the editors nor the writers of the forewords, but only the views of the individual writers. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement.

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

To find out more about the Fabian Society, the Young Fabians, the Fabian Women’s Network and our local societies, please visit our website at www.fabians.org.uk

Published by Young Fabians

info@youngfabians.org.uk

www.youngfabians.org.uk

Young Fabians

61 Petty France London, UK, SW1H 9EU

Editorial Team

Editor: Jimmy Sergi

Special Thanks: Hollie Wickens

Supporting Editor: Cathleen Clarke

Artwork: Mariota Spens

Design: Robin Wilde (robinwilde.me)

CHAIR’S FOREWORD

JAMES POTTS

Welcome to the latest issue of Antics. I’m James Potts and I’m delighted to introduce this issue, which I hope will be a resumption of publishing this magazine on a more regular basis. Believe it or not, it is also my first time writing for Antics, despite being a Young Fabian for the past seven years, so it’s a delight for me personally to write this foreword as Chair.

One of my priorities for the year ahead is to hear from you! We’ve recently launched a members’ survey, asking about what we’re doing well and how we can improve. I would like to thank everyone who has filled out the survey, the findings of which will be reported back on soon.

Since our election in November, the Executive Committee has been hard at work organising AGMs for our various policy networks, regional/national groups and advocacy groups. Never have there been more opportunities for you to get involved and help shape the future of the left.

We also recognise the cost-of-living crisis is making things less affordable for many at present, hence why the Fabians have extended our concession membership to everyone under 26, making being a Young Fabian more accessible. 2023 is a crucial year for the Young Fabians, especially as the Labour Party is in listening mode ahead of an expected General Election in 2024. To me, this makes the theme of this issue, ‘Broken Britain: The Task Ahead for Labour’, all the more crucial. After 13 years of Conservative Government, we find ourselves in a country that doesn’t work for many, especially if you’re young. With home ownership a struggle, the NHS on its knees and an education system putting everyone involved under immense pressure, the Labour Party needs to produce innovative solutions to these challenges and hit the ground running if elected in 2024. The articles in this magazine identify where the issues are and offer some suggestions as to what those solutions might look like, making for an engaging read.

We were inundated with pitches for this issue, and we could have filled this magazine three times over if we’d included them all. This highlights the importance of Young Fabians like yourselves having the opportunity to write about the issues that affect us as young people in the run-up to that election. I am humbled to see so many put forward some excellent suggestions.

We’re delighted to have an interview with Paul Nowak, the General Secretary of the TUC, and I would like to extend my thanks to him for giving up the time to contribute to our debate.

I would also like to thank Jimmy Sergi for his hard work in bringing this all together. It’s a fantastic piece of work and we really hope you enjoy reading it.

EDITOR’S FOREWORD

As we approach the 13th anniversary of the 2010 General Election, the impact of Conservative austerity has never been more apparent. From rocketing energy bills to 500,000 workers striking on the same day, government policy is pushing Britain to breaking point. Despite this bleak outlook, this edition of Antics should present a sense of cautious optimism. With the Labour Party ahead in the polls and gearing up for the next election, it is time to present a positive vision for how a Labour government can address over a decade of public services being underfunded.

From education and healthcare to justice and transport, this edition of Antics offers a synoptic view of the impact of the last decade, and, more importantly, how the next generation of Labour policymakers will address them. The Young Fabians have the perfect opportunity to be not just the future, but the present, of the left in the UK. I hope that this issue of Antics demonstrates the wealth of talent and experience that our young members can offer.

As well as contributions from our members, it has been a privilege to work with some of the biggest names in our movement on this topic. Interviewing Paul Nowak, the newly-appointed General Secretary of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC), in the context of significant levels of industrial action, served as an important reminder of the importance of our relationship with trade unions, who alongside the Fabian Society founded our party over a century ago.

Our sister youth wing in Italy, Federazione dei Giovani Socialisti, also provide a valuable contribution to this edition. The Young Fabians are full members of the Young European Socialists (YES), and our members have taken full advantage of this, travelling across Europe for events with other young left-wing people from across the continent. In a post-Brexit country, it is more important than ever that we cooperate with our allies internationally, remembering the true meaning of ‘global Britain’. I would like to thank our Italian counterparts for writing for us. Finally, I would like to thank all of our contributors, and everyone who submitted ideas for this issue. With over 50 pitches, it is clear that the Young Fabians are blessed with enthusiastic members who will no-doubt form the future of our movement. If you have ideas for future editions of Antics, or want to get in touch about anything else, you can contact me by email at jimmy.sergi@youngfabians.org.uk.

BRITANNIA UNCHAINED, BUT NEVER IN VAIN

A Labour Vision for Financial Services Post-Brexit

One aspect of Kwasi Kwarteng’s “blink and you missed it” tenure as Chancellor we will not forget in a hurry is his (attempted) reforms to the financial services sector.

Rolling back regulations like Solvency II, removing banker bonus caps, attempting to reduce the top tax bracket, and increasing maximum investment limits; all radical deregulation carried out at an unprecedented scale in an attempt to foster foreign investment and draw overseas workers. These reforms are hardly a surprise given both Kwarteng and Truss were contributors to Britannia Unchained - a book penned by a group of Thatcherite, free market devotees that advocate deregulating the financial services sector to make the country more desirable for foreign investment.

Kwarteng’s logic comes at a cost, however - higher caps on investment lead to larger gambles and the creation of unhealthy speculative bubbles; uncapped bonuses to the encouragement of risk-taking and stoking of wealth disparity. It’s a high-stakes gamble and one that cannot be afforded during a cost-of-living crisis where the taxpayer may have to pick up the bill.

What should be remembered is the purpose of this regulation was to mitigate financial crises like 2008 and 2000, rolling it back sets the country up to sleepwalk into recession saddling taxpayers with risky debt. With the existing inflationary hit to the public purse, the cost of another Black Swan event may leave the Government in the position of having to take large ownership stakes to save firms, something it already skirted with pension funds losing £75 billion and risking insolvency as a direct result of the mini-budget.

Deregulation is a poor policy and an unacceptable risk. With a General Election less than two years away, Labour needs a pragmatic vision to ensure the stability and global reputation for the quality of UK financial services. Comprising 8% of GDP, regulation of the sector should be at the heart of economic policy. An eye-watering £1.3 trillion has left the City of London since Brexit, and further losses could easily result from the Conservatives’ risky, ideologically dogmatic fiscal policy. Deregulation and encouragement of foreign investment as opposed to direct investment in services is more akin to a developing nation than the world’s former financial capital.

JAKE CURRANT & SARINA KIAYANI

Illustration: Mariota Spens

Today’s economic issues require global solutions, 2008 was a worldwide crisis due to inextricable international financial links, with large corporations operating across multiple major global financial hubs. A future Labour Government could leverage the post-Brexit regulatory landscape to align with more distant economic superpowers while maintaining its close links to the continent to combat global financial instability.

Collaboration could take the form of a regulatory framework to create a level-playing field for international investments, campaigning to strengthen international bodies like the IMF, or codifying EU financial legislation into UK law to ensure regulatory alignment and preferential investing. Now the UK has now left the EU, its closest economic neighbour, there is far less cushioning for a major downturn.

Since the Thatcher Government of the 1980s, there has been a trend towards market deregulation and neoliberal policy, a far cry from the Keynesian postwar consensus that aimed to foster stability amidst uncertainty. Leading economist Ha-Joon Chang echoed at a recent London Young Fabians event that Labour should not be perceived as “Tory-lite” by continuing this pattern. Whilst the Conservatives’ economic legacy of austerity and ill-advised deregulation cannot be reversed overnight, Labour could be strategic to reduce the UK’s risk profile, including following neighbouring countries’ leads in sensible regulation and strengthening domestic investment in services, a long-standing and proven hallmark of Labour Governments past.

Financial services are too important to the UK to be gambled away by the Conservative’s outdated, developingnation politics. Labour must seize the initiative to secure our future.

Jake Currant is a Machine Learning Engineer, he has previously worked for several years in Foreign Exchange for a major European Bank and now champions AI Safety and Ethics.

Sarina Kiayani works in public affairs for a charity. She is the Women’s Officer of Young Labour and Communications Officer for London Young Fabians. 7

Before the first lockdown, the Conservatives could point to headline figures which, they argued, showed the UK labour market was in safe hands. Between 2010-2020, the UK’s employment rate rose sharply to over 76% of our workingage population – the highest level since records began in 1971. Inactivity – a measure capturing all those not in paid employment, not looking for work, and not available to start work – had reached a similar all-time low of just over 20%. Our unemployment rate was telling a similar story, and even in the aftermath of the financial crisis never reached the level of previous recessions. Yet the pandemic has completely reversed these trends, exposing the underlying weaknesses in the British economy. Employment is now 292,000 lower, and inactivity is 575,000 higher, than it was before the first lockdown. While other G7 countries have now largely reversed this trend since Covid, the UK hasn’t. Those in employment, meanwhile, have seen the largest falls in real-terms pay on record. Why has this happened? I would suggest it has something to do with the underlying quality of the jobs created over the past decade. The key, staple labour market indicators of employment, inactivity and unemployment only give a skin-deep picture of what’s really happening in the world of work in Britain. Someone doing just one hour of paid employment in a week is classed as employed, whilst to be officially unemployed people need to meet stringent requirements on work search activity and availability to start work. These statistics don’t capture the real-life struggles of people in the most insecure, informal, and low-quality jobs – such as zero-hours contracts and gig economy labour.

Crucially, much of the rise in employment over the previous decade was driven by self-employment, which rose 25% – to over 5 million – in the decade to Oct-Dec 2019. This period saw a net flow of workers from employment into self-employment. The evidence suggests this new group of selfemployed had few other work opportunities: they tended to be paid less than employees, were underemployed, and had a prior history of unemployment or inactivity.

The UK isn’t unique amongst Western countries in having a growing problem of precarious work, with many workers unable to access the secure, long-term employment opportunities of previous generations. This has concerning implications for the sustainability of welfare systems. Employers currently face a financial incentive to use self-employed workers rather than hire their own employees: it means lower rates of employee National Insurance Contributions (NICs), no employer NICs, no employer pension contributions, and few worker entitlements. This situation effectively pushes the risks associated with work away from employers onto workers and, ultimately, the state. When these workers fall ill, as in the Covid-19 pandemic, there are no employer sick pay obligations. When they retire, many won’t have private pensions; and depending on their NICs, some may not even get a full state pension.

This situation may explain why, since the pandemic, there has been a net flow of self-employed workers into inactivity. Due to the poor insurance against the risk that their work offered when Covid hit, many such workers have in effect given up. Others have re-classified themselves as employees, effectively continuing in their current roles without any evidence of associated improvements to their underlying job quality and prospects.

Labour’s response to this issue will define its first years in office. It lies at the heart of the growth agenda, is crucial to funding future public services, and has driven many recent industrial disputes. A bold plan for good work should start by incentivising employers to invest in good jobs, rather than vice-versa. Second, both the DWP and local government needs to be empowered to re-assert themselves as powerful brokers of good jobs: working with employers who wish to offer long-term careers and good quality jobs, and refusing to write a blank cheque to those who don’t. Third, workers need better and more enforceable rights to secure work, with full employment rights from day one and much tougher penalties for employers who break the law – ending any prospect of scandals like P&O ferries.

Labour Needs a Plan for

GOOD , SECURE WORK

Tom Stephens is a former Cabinet Member for Education, Employment and Skills at the London Borough of Brent and an academic specialising in measuring job quality and worklessness.

FUNDING SOCIAL CARE

Perhaps the clearest symptom of British political dysfunction is the failure of governments to resolve the burning issue of social care. The current Social Care system, which requires local government to provide some means-tested financial support, leaves many with virtually uncapped social care costs. The NHS, meanwhile, struggles to cope with the inevitable fallout.

The implementation of potential solutions to the social care crisis is a frequent topic of policy debate. Each proposed solution, however, faces a similar intractable problem: how do we pay for it?

The Social Care price tag depends greatly on exactly how comprehensive Labour wants its solution to be. However, the amount required to address the issue sustainably will likely be over £10bn1

In this piece, I will lay out a series of different options to raise this sort of money and briefly outline the pros and cons of each.

The first, and perhaps least superficially appealing option, is to increase one of the ‘big three’ basic taxes. That is, to hike the rate of VAT, National Insurance Contributions (NICs), or basic Income Tax. Such an increase would mirror the move by the government in 2022 to impose the ‘Health and Social Care Levy’, which is supposed to fund the imposition of a cap on total social care expenditure but is being spent on NHS.

Each of these could raise enough money, but none of them are particularly progressive.

Furthermore, since each of these taxes are paid by most people, they are politically fraught. This method of financing Social Care would pay for the care of mostly older, on average wealthier, people off the taxes of the working-age population.

The second option is a more targeted tax, such as an increase to the top rate of income tax or NICs. However, since such taxes are paid by relatively few, they cannot raise this sort of money. Liz Truss’s proposed abolition of the top rate of tax, for example, was estimated to cost only £2bn. As a result, Labour would need 5 tax increases of a similar magnitude to solve the Social Care problem.

Finally, one option could be to introduce a large new tax. Wealth taxes could certainly raise the requisite sum. Wealth taxes to fund social care would also redistribute largely within the same generation. Both in terms of politics and social justice, there is a strong argument for allowing the large increases in asset prices experienced by the Baby Boomer generation to fund their social care costs. However, the latest modelling suggests that ongoing taxation of wealth would impose very large administrative costs both on the state and on individuals. Labour should, instead, therefore look at alternative methods of taxing wealth, such as imposing capital gains taxation on the estates of people who die, foreigners, and people’s first homes, and imposing a Land Value Tax.

Finally, there are potential non-tax or low-tax solutions. The current Tory promise of a cap on care costs could generate a market for private insurance. This could solve the funding problem but only by imposing unappealing mandatory pseudo-taxes, with virtually the same economic and political impact.

The upshot, then, is that funding for social care must increase. However, any substantial tax increase will impose political risk. Labour must look beyond the familiar tools of NICs and VAT, instead looking to tax wealth. However, the glinting magpie’s gold of a straightforward wealth tax should be regarded with suspicion.

The long-term funding and provision of Social Care must be addressed, but it also should not be a priority for the next government. Instead, either a Tory or a Labour Administration should focus on expanding the level, abundance, and affordability of existing local authority care, before attempting root and branch reform that can last generations. Finding more money is never easy, and it will be harder still for the next government. The groundwork must be laid, and the case must be made. But the current system, in which so many elderly people are left unable to afford the care they need and reliant on the goodwill of others is intolerable. The UK can be the best country in the world to grow old in, but it will require monumental political, policy, and fiscal capital.

MATTHEW OULTON

From Merseyside, Labour’s true heartland, Matthew Oulton is a Graduate student in Economics, and writes frequently on a range of economic and political issues. His interests in Economics focus on microeconomic theory and Public Policy, and his politics are characterised by a nearpathological obsession with returning Labour to government.

KERRIE PORTMAN

THE BROKEN CARE SYSTEM

We, as Care Leavers, are your children if you are an elected politician. The 2017 Children’s and Social Work Act brought the concept of Corporate Parenting into the law, stating Local Authorities have legal duties to Care Leavers as their Corporate Parents. An interesting evolution of that idea is that elected politicians are also the Corporate Parents of Care Experienced people.

A Care Leaver is any adult who has spent time in the Care of their Local Authority as a child. One in five Care Leavers feels lonely all or most of the time. Adults who have spent time in Care are 360% more likely to die prematurely than our peers. 39% of care leavers aged 19-21 years are not in education, training or employment. 25% of prisoners are Care Experienced, 16% of these having over 6 different placements whilst in Care. Just under 50% of under-21-year-olds in contact with the criminal justice system have spent time in care. 25% of the homeless population is Care Experienced. 45% of looked-after Children have a mental illness, including 72% in residential Care. Those in Care and Care Leavers are 4-5 times more likely to attempt suicide into adulthood. We are not bad people. We are often left unsupported by a chronically underfunded system. This is a by-product of the short-termism of the Conservative government.

You are my Corporate Parents. This ought to bring the responsibility of the Care System, and the fate of Care Leavers, as your children, to the forefront of the political agenda.

Care Experienced and Estranged People should have an Officer position within Constituency Labour Parties. When I attended the Political Literacy APPG on December 5th 2022, one thing discussed was that a key way to engage people within politics is ensuring they are able to see themselves. Having this Officer role shows us we’re welcome and valued within politics. It adds validity to our needs as a community and adds visibility to us as a homogeneous group to those who don’t understand us. As a queer, disabled Care Leaver, I never felt politics was a place for me and ended up leaving my first venture into local party politics due to feeling bullied and segregated. In order to create a fairer and more equal society, we need to practise inclusion. If we reject people for being Care Experienced, then are we really better than the classist, elitist, individualistic Conservatives we claim to oppose?

Local Authorities should pass the motion to include being Care Experienced as a Protected Characteristic. Josh McAlistair, the author of The Care Review, advocates for this in the interim of central government responding to the recommendations made in The Care Review. As well as protecting against direct discrimination, this would also protect us against indirect discrimination, including health care, education, police discrimination and the over-criminalising of Care Leavers, private rental sector and housing Local Connection rules which increase Care Leaver homelessness.

Stop the Privatisation of Care. In 2020 The Children’s Commissioner published ‘Thousands of Children in Care Being ‘’Failed by the State’’ Because of a Broken Residential Care Home Market’ which reports the number of Children placed in private sector-owned properties rose by 42% between 2011 and 2019. However privatised companies seek profit, the same report finding that larger providers take a profit margin of 17%, or over £200 million a year, on fees from Local Authorities. Profits are often prioritised at the expense of Care. Fund both Children’s and Adult’s Social Care. This point is rather self-explanatory.

Kerrie Portman is a queer autistic Care Leaver. In November 2022, she was named one of the winners of 30 to Watch Politics for her work advocating against Care Leaver homelessness and as a director of a grassroots pride CIC. She is currently studying at Cambridge University as part of their pioneering Foundation Year for disadvantaged students, where she is Girton College Rep at the Cambridge University Labour Club.

PROTECTING CARE LEAVERS

TINA BHARTWAS

The Government’s austerity agenda didn’t just force me to grow up early but it meant that time and time again I was let down by the services that should have been there for me.

A bit about my story:

As a baby, children’s services were involved with me, but as time passed that was a safety net I slipped through, not helped by the chronic underfunding. As a young carer, slowly taking on more and more from the age of six, an intervention from adult social care could have transformed my family life. I remember one counselling session at school where I was presented with the words “We think what you’re experiencing at home is domestic abuse” and a leaflet breaking down what that meant. When the session ended I walked away with this leaflet and for my own safety put it straight into the bin. Perhaps if schools were not so underfunded and staff were not struggling so much the outcome would have been different. When during the first lockdown whilst still in Sixth Form I fled from my family due to domestic abuse, because I was 18 there was a lot of confusion over what to do. I quickly found out that not only was support in my local area limited but the local authority did not classify me as a single person, even despite my situation to be ‘vulnerable’ which left me homeless for 8 months, initially sofa surfing and then in refuge accommodation.

I can’t help but think how different my life would be if just one of these services had stepped in.

The lack of support for vulnerable young people played a significant role in why I put my name forward to stand for Hertfordshire County Council, to ensure that those experiences are learned from. I have seen not only how overstretched local authority services are but the fact they do not have the correct resources to do their jobs. I was shocked to see that the last time estranged young people had been mentioned in a guide was 10 years ago!

I have pushed for action to support estranged young people to ensure we do not continue to be left behind but that is not easy when there are several hurdles the main ones being:

1. If the law does not classify estrangement as an additional vulnerability, how can a council make you a priority for services especially as they are so overstretched?

2. How can councils support estranged young people when there is no data to do so?

Since I started my activism and advocacy around my own estrangement I have found disappointingly that there is very little content on this topic from political parties. The reality is when the next Labour Government comes to power there will be a whole ‘lost’ generation of children and young people and we must be sure that we transform their lives for the better too.

Work, care, equality and security are the values our Labour Party stands for and could not be more accurately what care-experienced and estranged young people need and want. I would like to see the next Labour Government:

1. Making care-experienced (importantly all care-experienced people without the time limit that is placed for many to access vital services) or estranged a protected characteristic so that councils can not only prioritise us but are able to have data.

2. Tackle the lack of trauma specialists that can be accessed via the NHS mental health services.

3. Ensure wrap-around care for care-experienced and estranged young people which is the same regardless of the local authority that doesn’t involve us having to explain ourselves repeatedly.

4. Deal with the unfair system of guarantors or six months rent in private renting

5. Make sure support for estranged young people and care leavers is evened out. This involves providing support to all under the bracket of protected characteristics I’ve stated above until the age of 25

Tina Bhartwas is an estranged third-year university student and Sounding Board Member for the Unite Foundation. She is a Labour and Co-operative Councillor and Young Fabians Women’s Officer.

A CHILDCARE SYSTEM FIT FOR THE FUTURE

FINLEY HARNETT

The Conservatives’ management of childcare has failed to deliver for children, parents and the economy. For over 12 years, childcare has become increasingly unaffordable and unavailable. Britons pay the third-highest childcare costs in the developed world. Average UK nursery costs are now around £936 a month, just under a quarter of an average-earning couple’s income. Early years providers, underfunded and undervalued by the government, are closing at an alarming pace, with 5000 having closed in the last year. With supply plummeting and fees rocketing, parents are being forced to leave the workforce to plug caring gaps, limiting their choice and constraining our capacity to grow the economy. Disproportionately, it is mothers who are sacrificing their career progression, pushing women out of the labour market and entrenching gender pay and pensions gaps.

The high costs involved mean that Britons are having fewer children. Our birth rate is declining. Against a costof-living crisis exacerbated by Conservative economic incompetence, would-be parents are unable to start a family, or have as many children as they would have liked, because they cannot afford to do so. That’s a tragedy for the individuals in question, while for society as a whole, the drop in the fertility rate poses long-term economic challenges. The UK’s increasingly-ageing population will have fewer working-age people to contribute tax, yet more pensioner benefits, health and social care to finance for the elderly. To avoid greater fiscal pressure in the future, childcare has to become more affordable than it currently is.

For these reasons, childcare reform must be a central plank of Labour’s economic strategy ahead of the next general election. As the party of family and opportunity, Labour should establish a new, modern childcare system from the end of parental leave to the end of primary

school. Though spending options will be limited for the next Labour government, childcare ought to be an area where investment, like breakfast clubs and state-run nurseries, is prioritised, not least because the investment will pay for itself. A study by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), published in December 2022, found that a “universal childcare guarantee” would increase earnings by £13bn a year and generate £8bn a year for the Treasury, benefiting those on the lowest incomes the most.

For Labour, childcare reform is an issue of fairness: we should commit to measuring the impact of our childcare policies on the gender pay gap, and the so-called “motherhood pay penalty” (that is, the pay gap between working mothers and similar women without dependent children). We ought to guarantee that early years workers will be paid a proper salary, reflective of the vital work they do to support our young people.

But fixing childcare is also about fixing Britain’s productivity problem, and Labour shouldn’t lose sight of this (even if the Chancellor has ‒ Jeremy Hunt didn’t mention ‘childcare’ once during his 2022 Autumn Statement). When making the case for reform to the country, Labour should focus on the economic merits of our policy. The status of the economy impacts us all, whether we’re parents or not, and the message about growth will appeal to floating voters. Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party in Australia reaped the electoral rewards of focusing on childcare. That’s why Stella Creasy MP was right to emphasise recently that “childcare is a vital part of the national infrastructure, and those failing to invest in it are the real anti-growth coalition”. Until we fix Britain’s broken childcare system, we cannot seriously attempt to deliver economic growth. Therefore, it is imperative that childcare is treated as one of Labour’s foremost missions to fix broken Britain.

Finley Harnett is a Senior Parliamentary Assistant, Co-Chair of London Young Fabians and was a Labour Party candidate in May 2022’s Harrow Council elections.

ABORTION RIGHTS IN THE UK

Looking Forward in Hope?

Many will share the sentiment that 2022 was an odd year. Particularly, it saw an upsurge of political events that demanded steady leadership in the face of cataclysms. For pro-choice advocates, 2022 is the year where we can say, hand on heart, that we look back in anger. The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark judgement of Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed privacy for women opting to terminate a pregnancy, is just one example. In Poland, activist Justyna Wydrzynska could potentially face three years of imprisonment for assisting a woman stuck in an abusive relationship to access safe abortion services. In Malta, a bill introduced by the Maltese Labour Government that will decriminalise abortion when a woman’s life is at risk is being opposed by the centre-right Nationalist Partydismissed as a conspiracy ploy that will ‘introduce abortion by stealth’.

The above examples may give the impression that, comparatively, women in the United Kingdom can access abortion without any fear of persecution. Upon further examination, however, such thoughts may need revising.

Abortion in the UK

When we think of abortion laws, the first thing that comes to mind is the Abortion Act of 1967. This Act (which does not apply to Northern Ireland) introduced a list of grounds on which women can have an abortion. In practice, an abortion under such grounds can only be done with the approval of two medical practitioners, confirming that the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit of 24 weeks.

Legalization v. Decriminalization: One and the same?

For brevity, it is essential to distinguish between decriminalisation and legalisation. Whilst decriminalisation stops at ensuring that the act in question is no longer considered a criminal offence, legalisation allows an act to be fully exercised within a controlled legislative framework. Therefore, might one conclude that abortion is already, at least to some extent, legal?

The Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 (the OAPA) encapsulates the criminalisation of abortion. Section 58 of the OAPA applies to women who ‘procure their own miscarriage’ in that they shall be liable to punishment and ‘kept in penal servitude for life’. Although the Abortion Act 1967 does partially decriminalise the termination of a pregnancy in some circumstances, the default position is that abortion on its own is still a crime and the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 provide a list of ‘defences’ to the general offences in the OAPA.

This also highlights the problem with decriminalisation. Decriminalisation focuses on listing exceptions to a crime, rather than developing a regulated legal framework that establishes standards for safe and accessible abortions. Comparatively, legalisation ensures that abortions are carried out in compliance with a robust legal framework whilst still effectively criminalising forced abortion and other dangerous procedures.

By crystallising this into law, these harmful practices are persecuted and women can feel empowered in seeking help, rather than fear persecution. Indeed, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have renewed their calls for the UK Government to decriminalize abortion and amend the current laws in light of recent reports that two women in England were currently facing criminal prosecution under the OAPA 1861 for terminating their own pregnancies.

Where do we go from here?

The war on abortion won’t be won solely by a brief campaign. It will require advocacy, collective action and collaboration. Earlier last year, French President Emmanuel Macron, in a speech at the European Parliament, called for the right to abortion to be added to the European Charter of Human Rights. A little closer to home, Stella Creasy MP announced her endeavour to table an amendment that would set in stone a fundamental right to an abortion in the British Bill of Rights in June of last year.

As a general election creeps upon us, Labour will focus on the failures of the Conservative Party over past and present legislatures. Against this backdrop lies a panacea of issues that Labour must not take for granted. Ensuring that abortion access is free from barriers would show women and activists whose side the Labour Party is on and further affirm its commitment to social justice and equality. By focusing on accessibility as a theme, maybe 2023 can be the year where we can start looking forward in hope.

Maya Spiteri Dalli is a lawyer from Malta and an active member of the Maltese Labour Party. She formed part of a key team within the Maltese Labour Party during the Maltese General Election and continues to assist the Party on matters relating to policy. She is currently completing a law conversion course at a UK University.

PAUL NOWAK Questions for

Jimmy Sergi interviews Paul Nowak, the newly-appointed General Secretary of the Trade Unions Congress (TUC), about how the trade union movement has experienced ‘Broken Britain’.

What got you involved in politics and the trade union movement?

It’s hard to trace it back to one single thing. When I was growing up, politics was one of those things we’d talk about around the dinner table. My parents were both interested in politics, but weren’t ‘Political’ with a capital P or involved in any party. But growing up in Merseyside in the 1980s and early 1990s, it was hard not to see politics happening all around you. In terms of unions, I started working in Asda part-time while still at school, and joined a union. I became a health and safety rep not long after and I have been a union activist ever since. I joined the Labour Party ahead of the 1992 election. That was a time where everyone thought there was a possibility of finally getting a Labour government after 13 long years of a Conservative government. Obviously, it didn’t work out like that, but that was my first experience of cutting my teeth in the Labour Party.

Tell me about the impact you have seen the last 13 years of austerity have on the workers that the TUC represent.

It has been a disastrous decade or more for working people. Our cost-of-living crisis is to a large extent a wages crisis. This is a government that has failed to increase people’s wages and living standards. We published some research that showed that if wages had grown in the UK as they had across other OECD countries, the average British worker would be £4,000 better off, but instead, we have had a decade of stagnant wages, in reality falling real-terms wages. How has that happened? Firstly, there was austerity which crippled our public services and sucked demand out of the economy. We had the Trade Union Act 2016, which was aimed at damaging the organisations that stand up and deliver for working people; trade unions. We had Brexit causing uncertainty, disruption to supply chains and damaging our trading relationships with Europe. Obviously, we had the pandemic and the war in Ukraine; those things happened all around the globe. But it is the UK Government’s failure to invest in our economy, to invest in public services and workers, that has had a detrimental effect. We are in danger of going back to the same ‘doom loop’ now of another round of austerity on public services. I think that would be disastrous and we are seeing it now with the staffing crises in the NHS and education, and a morale and motivation crisis right across the public sector. This is a government that has no plan for addressing any of those issues.

You’ve worked for the TUC under Labour and Conservative governments, how big do you feel the difference is for the trade union movement and for your job of having Labour in government?

The relationship between a Labour government and trade unions is never always perfect, and there are still a lot of things we disagree on, such as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the NHS and Education. But it makes a world of difference. The Labour government in 1997 introduced legislation guaranteeing union recognition in workplaces if they passed certain thresholds. We had the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, a huge boost for millions of low-paid workers. We had a whole raft of new individual employment rights. I would argue we needed more to secure collective employment rights and to enforce those rights, but it was still a new raft of employment rights. Crucially we also had investment in our public services, and so the fabric of our schools, our hospitals, our public realm generally improved. That is a world of difference.

Another key difference is that the voices of working people get listened to. Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt have not met one single senior trade unionist since becoming Prime Minister and Chancellor. When you represent six million people, it is beggar belief that the Government won’t even positively engage with the TUC and our unions. So there is a huge difference for us and our members; as I say it is never perfect but it is a hell of a lot better for working people under a Labour government. Do you see an end to the current strike action before the next election, or will it take a Labour government to resolve these disputes?

The answer to that lies at the doors of number 10 and number 11 Downing Street. Just today we have seen that having secured a successful industrial action ballot, the Fire Brigades’ Union (FBU) have now got a new pay offer from their employers which they are taking to members. That suggests that you can negotiate your way through these issues and resolve these public sector pay disputes. But you need a Government that has the political will to do it, and that is willing to make available the resources to do it. I‘d question whether Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt are in the position to do that, at a time when you could boost the pay of public sector workers, or you could listen to your backbenchers and deliver a tax cut. The ball is very much in the Government’s court. I’m a trade unionist, I always think you can resolve disputes, but the key to starting this is getting around a table and having a negotiation. The Government is failing to do that.

What are your thoughts on Rishi Sunak’s anti-strike legislation, and how will the TUC respond to it?

It is an attack on a fundamental British liberty. The right to strike, to withdraw your labour if you feel you have no alternative, is supported by the British public. What this legislation will mean is that someone could take part in a lawful industrial action ballot, be successful in securing that ballot, and then be instructed by their employer to still work and be sacked if they don’t, and I think that is absolutely reprehensible. We are doing all we can to prevent this from getting on the statute book. That’s difficult because the Tories have a parliamentary majority and seem determined to steam-roll the legislation through. But we will be doing everything we can in the Commons and Lords to stop it. We will be challenging it legally if it does manage to get on the statute book. But

crucially, we have also seen Labour being very clear that they are opposed to the legislation now, and will repeal it if elected, alongside the 2016 Trade Union Act. That is a really important message to send to employers. It is still all to play for, but this is a spiteful piece of legislation. The government’s response to hundreds of thousands of people taking strike action, often for the first time ever, is not to resolve the issues, but to make it more difficult to strike. I don’t think that is sustainable, and I don’t think it has the support of the British public.

The emergence of the gig economy has been one of the greatest challenges facing the trade union movement and workers’ rights over the past decade. Do you feel there is any meaningful policy the next Labour government can implement to protect these workers?

Absolutely, and I think Labour have set them out in their ‘A New Deal for Workers’ document. Things like a ban on zero-hour contracts will have a big impact on the gig economy. Another policy is a presumption that workers are employed rather than self-employed unless an employer can demonstrate otherwise. I think it has to be part of a wider set of measures, shifting the balance of power in workplaces. We need a proper, comprehensive employment bill that brings employment law up to date with the changing nature of employment.

We have seen governments do this in other European countries. I was in Spain last year with Justin Madders, Louise Haigh and Jonathan Ashworth, looking at what the left-wing Spanish government have been doing in terms of regulating the gig economy. They have something called the Riders’ Law specifically about delivery companies in the gig economy, tackling insecure employment. This is the difference a progressive government can make.

There is also a role for the unions. I have been heartened by the fact that the GMB has signed deals with Uber and Deliveroo, I think this is the right thing to do. It doesn’t matter what sort of contractual arrangement a worker has, we have got to make sure they are able to join a union. Our unions have started to do that but there is still more to do.

Many Young Fabians will be anxious about career prospects in the coming years, what do you see as the jobs of the future and how can readers best prepare for them?

That is really difficult because anyone who tries to predict what the world of work will look like in 10 or 20 years’ time is inevitably wrong because you can’t predict what technology will emerge. But we need to get to grips with the need to decarbonise our economy, reaching net zero while still ensuring good quality jobs. We have a digital revolution, from Artificial Intelligence to the increased rollout of technology in public services and across the economy.

My point of view is that being in a union allows you to shape those changes in workplaces. Change is the only thing that is constant in a workplace, and unions are there to help people mitigate, manage and adapt to that change, rather than it being imposed on workers. Our unions have done a lot of practical things, such as talking to energy companies about the transition to net zero, as well as insurance companies about the changing nature of jobs. We have been working on David Blunkett’s skills commission, and Labour is going

to have to have a fundamental rethink on how you support people all the way through their working lives, so people can reskill, retrain, and not be afraid of changes in technology. We had a great track record with unionlearn, but unfortunately, the Tories pulled the funding for that. But I think Labour working with the unions to ask how we can allow people to access careers advice, training and education throughout their working lives is going to be important. Also making sure that we have the right framework of law, to make sure we can deploy things like Artificial Intelligence in a respectful way, rather than using it for over-surveillance.

Do you think that the next Labour government will do enough for trade unions, and how will you ensure that this happens?

Whoever is in Number 10, I want to get the best deal for working people. The ‘New Deal for Workers’ that Labour has laid out is a really good starting point for reshaping the world of work. There are other things that Labour have committed to that would be a huge step forward for our members: Rachel Reeves has talked about a wave of insourcing in our public services, a new publicly-owned energy company, bringing the rail industry back into public ownership. All of this looks like a really coherent, transformative programme. Our job in the TUC is to be constantly pushing Labour, so that the party goes into the next election on a platform that reflects what matters to our members, their families and their communities. We don’t expect to agree on everything, but in terms of the broad direction of travel, they need to rebalance the world of work, make sure that we all benefit from technological advances, and think more boldly about tax.

Looking back in time, what would you say is the biggest victory of the trade union movement?

There really are too many of them to mention! If you think about those big legislative changes, there wouldn’t have been a National Minimum Wage had it not been for unions working with the Labour Party. We wouldn’t have legislation that sets the legal framework for equal pay for women. Everything in terms of equality legislation, the right to paid holidays, parental leave, access to flexible work and pensions, unions have been at the heart of all of that progressive change.

I wouldn’t single out one big victory because sometimes it is the little things that make a difference. Just this week, Sadiq Khan confirmed that contractors working for Transport for London will get concessionary travel on the London Underground. That’s a massive boost to lowpaid workers that probably doesn’t make the headlines but makes a big difference to low-paid workers. I’m less interested in the big victories and more interested in, every single day, our unions doing the small incremental stuff that makes a big difference to people in their ordinary working lives. Even with a Tory government, there wouldn’t have been a furlough scheme and people’s incomes being protected, if it weren’t for the trade union movement. We agreed on safe working guidance with the Government that kept people safe when they did have to go to work during the pandemic. So we do all the big-picture stuff, but for me, it is the little differences we make in workplaces every day that add up to the transformative effect of trade unions.

What would you say to young people reading this interview who are

considering joining a Trade Union?

The key thing is- to join us. And remember that trade union membership is not just about signing up and paying your money, it’s also about participating. On every measure, whether it is pay, access to education and skills, fairer, more inclusive, safer workplaces, being in a union makes a difference. So it is an opportunity to have a better life, but crucially for me it is also about having a voice at work. Whether you work in digital media or in a supermarket, having that ability to join with others and have your voice heard by the employer is really important. For me it is a key cornerstone of democratic society. Democracy is not just about voting in an election every five years, it is about being able to make sure your voice is listened to in your workplace and to have some agency.

So the key message is; join a union, get active in a union, help us make the change that people need to see in workplaces.

Finally, how optimistic do you feel about the years ahead for you in this role and whether workers’ rights will move in a positive direction, despite the last 13 years of austerity which have culminated in this ‘Broken Britain’?

I’m an Evertonian, so I have learned to be optimistic even in difficult circumstances, and that applies to trade unions. This is an incredibly daunting time to take over as TUC General Secretary, with lots of real challenges facing our members like the cost-of-living crisis and people taking industrial action. But I am optimistic, because what we have seen is people seeing the difference that unions make, and standing up trying to secure decent pay for them and their colleagues. This is our opportunity to promote trade unionism, and to tell people what it is about. Frances O’Grady, my predecessor, was a brilliant General Secretary of the TUC, but she had 10 years of a hostile Tory government. I think we have a possibility of a trade union movement working together with a Labour government at some time in the next two years. That could be a real sea change in what happens not only in workplaces but in British society. So I am really looking forward to that, but for now the important thing is to carry on with the day job, which is growing the trade union movement and winning for working people.

RADICAL EDUCATION IS SIMPLE

ANGUS RYAN

Education is in crisis. A third of teachers trained this decade have left. Unions are balloting. Exclusion rates have consistently increased. Conservative mismanagement has brought the education system to a precipice. Labour has but one chance to reach out a hand.

The next election presents Labour with its greatest chance of victory in over a decade; it is now a government in waiting. When it enters the doors of 10 Downing Street, it will encounter two key problems in education; a massive funding deficit and a burned-out workforce. Funding per primary and secondary school student remains below pre-2010 levels, with further education students even more poorly funded. Teachers have taken a real terms pay cut of 4-8% since 2010. Add into the mix a hike in electricity bills for schools, and you have schools that are ready to slowly dissolve without an influx of funding.

If this were not concerning enough, Labour must contend with a deeply demoralised workforce. The Conservative obsession over standards in education has created a system of meat grinders. OFSTED, league tables, and rankings force schools to obsess over image and evidence, piling targets and initiatives onto the backs of teachers, already broken by bloated classrooms. A series of ideological and inept Education Secretaries, each deciding they were the prophets of pedagogy, provided think-tank-developed strategies designed to revolutionise teaching, each needing hours of training from overpaid consultants.

Labour must be radical in how they approach these two problems. They must be radical through simplicity. When Bridget Phillipson becomes Education Secretary, she must resist the desire to undo all the actions of her predecessors. New governments always have the desire to fix the problem of education. The creation of league tables, reform of GCSEs, and the introduction of T-Levels, all have been authentic attempts to solve education, yet

have solved nothing. In reality, attempts to fix education have exacerbated the issues. The Govian reforms to GCSEs and OFSTED have multiplied the pressure and workloads of teachers, leaving less time for lesson planning and teaching, and inevitably driving down education for students. Combine this with the COVID-influenced demands for hybrid education, and teachers are on their last legs. We have only just managed to adapt to the multitude of changes and expectations of the previous few years; we cannot take any more.

Here is the radical juncture; Phillipson should not commit to major changes in education policy. There are undeniable issues in curriculum, support for students, and the organisation of schools. What is also undeniable is that the system is too fragile to absorb major change. Schools need money and time. We need money to plug the gaps in teaching staff, to pay their energy bills, and replace collapsing classrooms; we do not need more change. We need time to breathe and understand the system we have now. We need to work with what we have now, and once our classrooms have proper funding, and there are enough teachers to actually teach, then the government can begin the process of serious education reform.

It sticks in my craw to argue that we should continue Conservative education policies. As a student, I have been forced into tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. As a teacher, I see children failed every day, thanks to the myopic aims of the Conservative Party. I see their futures stunted because of the choices of those whose children will never be affected by those choices. These policies are destructive, but their alteration will be more so. The education system and our students cannot take any more destruction. We need money and time first. Once they are there, we can reform the lives of all students.

Angus Ryan is an English teacher in state secondary education, with a research focus in critical and liberative pedagogy.

Labour is the party of education, education, education. New Labour’s record of a 5% increase in school funding per annum, investment in teachers by increasing their pay and bettering their conditions, Teach First to get top graduates into disadvantaged schools, record numbers going to university, university tuition fees to allow key funds to early-years, and a multi-billion-pound Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme to rebuild crumbling schools, is something to be proud of.

Compare and contrast this with the Conservatives’ record: academies redeveloped to make opaque power structures, less democratic involvement, higher exclusion rates, and exorbitant senior leader pay; the biggest gap between state and independent schools on record; private schools handing out A* grades during the pandemic whilst an algorithm inflicted E grades on state school students; university maintenance loans not even covering rent; schools’ ceilings leaking and walls crumbling; BSF scrapped; maths until 18 lauded as a silver bullet; and constant flirtation with bringing back grammar schools.

All of my state education has been under the Conservatives, and I have paid a price. Cuts to my primary school were so crippling that we could not afford to print off the A4, black-and-white, one-sided weekly newsletter. Parents and teachers had to stage protests at my secondary school for fairer funding, which was the worst-funded school in one of the worst-funded and most deprived local authorities in England. And now – in my GCSE year – I’m missing valuable days of schooling to strikes over pay and conditions, the result of twelve years of underfunding and neglect.

The challenges in education faced by the next Labour government are great, but not insurmountable. We know that education is key to social mobility, to changing Britain, to bettering people’s lives, and to building a fairer, greener future. We must be bold and tackle education as a key area.

Already, we have seen progressive policies like removing private schools’ unfair tax break to fund our state schools, but Labour must go further, and develop a comprehensive, radical plan to reform education.

University maintenance loans must be reconsidered. There is too great an expectation placed upon parents’ pockets, and the most disadvantaged graduates leave with the most debt.

School structure must be overhauled. Strengthen local authorities and hold an enquiry into the efficacy of multi-academy trusts. Allow schools to switch and leave trusts. Strengthen the local, democratic involvement of councillors. Work with unions to better teachers’ pay and conditions. Increase retention and get the best graduates into the most deprived schools.

Challenge the trend of new, hyper-selective sixth forms, such as Michaela Community School. This is a loophole in the grammar school ban, and locks many students out of a high-quality sixth-form education, reducing their chances of reaching top universities.

JACOB SAMMON

Fix school funding. The formula is broken and disadvantages pupils in schools. Going to a well-funded school should not be a postcode lottery.

Enshrine the right of schools to have their own, individual identity. This enhances cohesion and is a rejection of the extreme streamlining, down to school name, motto, and logo, by multi-academy trusts.

Enhance in-authority SEND provisions. It is unacceptable that parents are having to travel miles to attend independent special schools.

And fund school rebuilding and redevelopment. Too many schools have leaking ceilings, cracking walls, little insulation, single-glazed windows, and peeling paint. Building Schools for the Future was an ambitious plan that bettered learning conditions for millions of pupils; the Tories scrapped it.

These are policies that Labour should implement. Labour should work with our friends in the trade union movement, and with parents, students, school leaders, and governors to make education work.

The overarching goal of Labour’s education policy must be harnessing the power of education to transform Britain’s social and economic landscape, building a fairer, greener future.

Jacob Sammon is a student who’s interested in history and politics. He is the Chair of the Young Fabians U19s Advocacy Group, and is interested in education policy.

We Need To

GET A GRIP ON HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY

A British policy black hole has exponentially grown during the 13 years of Conservative-led governments in which all sectors of society could not escape. The pandemic brought our attention to this policy vacuum and education is one of many areas suffering from ill-considered policy. Higher education, in particular, reflects decades of a hodgepodge of policymaking, and our attitudes, financing, and approach to this sector require a serious rethink.

The incremental and erratic approach to tertiary education has amalgamated into what Dr Philip Cunliffe at UCL accurately terms “market Stalinism.”

Representing both the worst of state and market forces that are increasingly managerial and wasteful, exampled by over-paid unelected senior leaders, flawed state regulatory attempts, and faux market competition.

The task ahead, therefore, for the next Labour government is to provide direction to higher education. For starters, we need to define its purpose. Is university education a public good? Or solely for an individual’s private benefit? With courses disrupted by lecturer strikes resulting in complaints about ‘value-for-money’ and how universities market themselves, the conversation around higher education increasingly appears to favour the needs, wants, and selfadvancement of the individual student. Education for education’s sake is a principle in decline.

If Labour agrees to the public good principle then the next government should reform the funding model for universities as this underpins many of the problems we see today. The ideological basis of the current funding model can be found in the obscure 2010 Browne Report. This report outlines a financing system based on consumer choice where prospective applicants, rather than public authorities, allocate their allotted loans to the universities that provide the best and most invaluable courses.

The injection of market principles was intended to create a dynamic, STEM-focused, well-funded and competitive system. However, unsurprisingly, basing the allocation of funding on the whims of 18-year-olds has not created the utopia outlined in the Browne report. Rather, the political reality of the student loan system is to offset the financial burden from current government expenditure, however, most loans are not being paid back. And simultaneously it is politically expedient not to increase the tuition loan amount, despite the funding gap concern raised by Universities UK, nor the maintenance loan in line with inflation. This system is deeply flawed and it needs overhauling. We need to start asking probing questions about the path to higher education and British educational priorities. Clearly, the transition from sixth form to university should be reformed. The agreed route in applying to university is through UCAS yet even UCAS’s own UCAS points are not recognised by most universities. Why? Degrees have culturally become the be-all and end-all of a young person’s existence and yet universities base their UCAS offers on predicted grades and not actual results. A-Level students, who can no longer sit November re-takes, find themselves basing their decisions on university ranking sites which in many respects use arbitrary metrics. As any Economics A-Level student knows a cause of market failure is incomplete knowledge. With the Welsh Government introducing a devolved regulatory body and the UK Government’s focus on ‘free speech’, tertiary education continues to be subject to erratic and disparate policymaking. Labour needs to provide a vision and a plan for the objectives and direction of higher education. The elements that need addressing are manifold, but clearly, Brexit will hold ongoing and profound implications for the sector, whether that be in the loss of EU research grants, brain drain, and the decline of European students in the UK.

Connor Morrissey ran as a SU presidential candidate in 2019, completed a Master's of Public Policy in 2021, and currently works in the higher education sector.

GERMANY’S €9 TICKET

The UK Is Missing Its Biggest Opportunity in Decades

The condition of the British railway system is a hot topic of debate at the moment. Some say that it’s in a dire state, while others claim that things are gradually improving. It’s undeniable that there have been some big problems with Britain’s railways in recent years. For example, overcrowding has become an increasingly common occurrence on many routes, especially during peak times. Delays and cancellations have become the new normal for commuters.

There are many reasons for the current mess on Britain’s railways. One is that successive governments have failed to invest in modernising our ageing network. Another problem is privatisation, which has resulted in a fragmented system where different companies operate different parts of the network. This can lead to problems when one company fails to fulfil its obligations; as we saw earlier this year when Southern Rail was hit by strikes.

Although the Department for Transport de facto nationalised the railways in the aftermath of the pandemic, the system is still fragmented, with the quality and reliability of trains leaving much to be desired.

12 years of Tory disinterest in rail has destroyed the system we desperately need to tackle climate change, combat the housing crisis and bring prosperity to all parts of the UK.

The Social Democratic-led coalition under Chancellor Scholz revolutionised the system overnight. Political will is the only tool that delivers change. Although public transport and especially the railways have been broken for some time in both the UK and Germany, only post-covid political will has brought real change - at least in Germany.

If you ever travelled pre-Covid with Germany’s state-owned but privately organised rail company Deutsche Bahn or tried to find the right local

ticket for the journey from Cologne to Essen in the endless sea of fare zones and purported savings options, you’ll know real frustration.

The €9 ticket changed everything overnight and showed what could be in store for the UK if we were ambitious enough. €9 for a ticket that was valid for a month and that allowed you to use all public transport - except high-speed lines - up and down the country is not only socially just, but the answer to how rail needs to work in the future. The figures published by the VDV (Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen) take no prisoners: Some 52 million €9 tickets were sold, 17% of ticket holders switched from other means of transport such as car, bicycle, etc. to public transport in August 2022 and 10% of ticket buyers gave up at least one of their daily car journeys.

Germany has now introduced the successor to the €9-ticket: the €49-ticket. The SPD is our sister party and I know that only Labour will be capable and bold enough to introduce such radical reform. My vision is the £49 ticket, which - unlike its German counterpart - includes high-speed lines and longdistance trains. Start your journey with Brighton & Hove buses at Westbourne Street and end at St Andrew Square in Edinburgh - all on a single ticket for £49.

On top of that, the private companies operating on behalf of the government should be merged into a single public organisation called Great British Rail, which should not be expected to make any profits at all. It should be a body charged with integrating all our routes, serving the nation with an easy-tounderstand and easy-to-afford fare system. Our understanding of the railway should be similar to our understanding of the police or our NHS: it is a basic service and mission-critical.

LESLIE ALAN PUMM

Leslie Alan Pumm joined the Fabian Society in 2022 and has been selected as a candidate for Brighton & Hove City Council for this year’s local elections on 4 May. He also serves as an officer on the Executive Committee of the London branch of the German SPD and maintains international relations.

PUTTING PEOPLE AT THE HEART

It is almost impossible to go a day in Britain without experiencing our broken and neglected transport system - whether that is delayed trains, cut bus services, polluting traffic, or closing regional airports - and public frustration is at boiling point. With growth stagnating and regional divides growing, only a government that prioritises building a resilient transport system that puts ‘people first’ can get the economy growing again. Too often, expensive and unreliable transport prevents people from doing their everyday tasks, whether that is commuting, reaching the local high street or visiting family/relatives. Rail is the prime example, with private providers such as Avanti and Transpennine Express running trains that should connect Britain’s biggest cities and productivity drivers. However, frequent cancellations and delays as well as extortionate pricing hurt the public. The transport coverage is also unequal, with bus routes cut and lack of investment in infrastructure if they are seen as unprofitable, despite them providing vital services for bridging towns and rural areas.

With people unable to trust our transport system, there has grown a heavy reliance on private cars to do essential tasks - despite this potentially costing more, worsening pollution and being not as effective for many journeys. Electric vehicles are an option, but they are increasingly unattainable due to their expense and supplychain shortages. Even meeting current targets for transition to EVs, charging infrastructure is reportedly 20 years behind schedule. For longer journeys, high-polluting flying is now cheaper and more accessible than getting the train, but even in this case, many regional airports are being lost as private companies mismanage their use (see Doncaster Sheffield Airport).

ALICE PLEASANT of Britain’s Transport System

Meanwhile, businesses are turned off from investing outside Britain’s South East, due to a lack of essential reliable transport for attracting talent and carrying out business across their region and wider. Especially if a company is choosing between not only the south-east or the wider UK, but even between the UK or Germany where intra-city transport is plentiful in options from trams to buses to undergrounds to micro-mobility and inter-city transport is cheap and reliable.

Only a transport system that is focused on putting ‘people first’ can help fix the state of British transport. Vital train and bus services cannot be left in the hands of companies that are putting their own ambitions above providing appropriate options for ordinary people. With the need to tackle climate change, the reliance on private cars and domestic flights will have to change. However, this cannot be done without providing a variety of sustainable and affordable options.

Power and control have to be put in the hands of people who use and rely on transport. The Metro Mayors have made progress on this front, with Liverpool City Region’s Steve Rotheram introducing publicly-owned trains as well as caps on bus fares and Greater Manchester’s Andy Burnham creating the ‘Bee Network’ that will establish an integrated transport system of buses, trams and rail with active transport. Introducing a variety of transport to reduce reliance on cars and an integrated system of public and private ownership that is committed to a ‘people first’ approach is central. Outside of cities, governments have to put structures and investment in place to make sure that the transport needs of an area come first.

In the 13 years of Conservative governments, there have been many promises with little delivery, with a transport bill axed and many sectors waiting for reform and legislation. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects such as HS2 have been delayed while HS3 and Northern Powerhouse Rail have been scrapped. Under Keir Starmer, Labour has rightly highlighted some of the long-standing problems with the transport system and begun to offer potential solutions, including rail nationalisation. However, with an election around the corner, the party needs a wider strategic plan for transport that puts people at its heart with timelines for real-terms delivery. Fixing this is at the heart of unlocking the economic growth that Britain needs to kickstart again.

Alice Pleasant is a public affairs specialist with experience across transport, devolution, financial services, energy and sport. She is a long-standing member of the Labour Party and also the COMMUNITY Lead for Labour in Communications, which has set up policy communications working groups.

England and Wales’

BROKEN JUSTICE SYSTEM

After almost 13 years of Tory rule, our justice system is in tatters. Ultimately, 25% budget cuts to the Ministry of Justice at the height of austerity, failing privatisation and dreadful policy decisions have culminated in a system which doesn’t work for victims, fails to treat criminals humanely, and has left those working within it completely burnt out. Put simply, Labour in government has a mammoth task on its hands, and it must rise to the challenge.

One of the most worrying issues is the huge backlog in courts. As of 2022, over 60,000 crown court cases and over 380,000 magistrates’ court cases had amassed. Not only has the pandemic contributed to this, but undoubtedly, so has the fact that between 2010 and 2019, over half of courts in England and Wales were closed. Shockingly, the Tories want to close 77 more by 2025/6. Those that remain are in poor condition, in part, due to inadequate funding for maintenance.

Even if a suitable court can be found to facilitate a case, it is becoming increasingly hard for a defendant to access legal aid - with some estimates that within 5 years, in many regions of England and Wales, there will be no duty solicitors to provide representation.

If by some miracle a case does get to court and an offender is sentenced to custody, they will enter a prison estate in crisis, which will likely see them re-offend upon release. Conditions in prisons have been described as some of the worst

ever seen by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons. Overcrowding, rife drug use and burnt-out, undertrained staff are just a few contributing factors. And yet, despite there being scant evidence that more prison places will reduce crime, the Tory government plans to build new prisons. We don’t need more prison places long termwe need fewer, with a focus on better conditions, properly paid staff and regimes conducive to rehabilitation, as is the case in Norway.

Building more prisons doesn’t alleviate the burden on the current system - it will just see more people imprisoned. The next Labour government must reject the flawed orthodoxy that draconian sentencing and overuse of prison is the magic bullet for crime reduction. Labour must reduce the prison population, beef up alternatives to custody and commit to early prevention and diversion. Labour’s recently announced policy to give victims a say over the type of community service work perpetrators have to do is a good start - it will boost public confidence in non-custodial sentences, which will reduce the number of people going to prison. Another idea might also be to release as many of the 3000 IPP legacy prisoners as is feasible - we introduced the flawed sentence, we should make amends.

And finally, one of the most important aspects of the justice system needing reform - policing. The tragic deaths of Sarah Everard and Oladeji Omishore are a stark reminder of how important it is that the police are properly trained, monitored and held accountable. If

they are not, it is marginalised groups who pay the price. At the end of 2022, the government found huge failings in how the police deal with rape - with explicit victim-blaming and botched investigations adding to record low levels of prosecutions. Labour cannot just offer to put more police on the street and assume that fixes the issue - there must be a culture change at every level of policing.

At a time when public trust in the police is being questioned, accountability is key - therefore it is disappointing that the Met police have announced they are going to stop recording the ethnicity of drivers stopped by officers, even though black drivers are 56% more likely to be stopped than white drivers. Labour must endeavour to boost public confidence in policing - but to do that, we need to move away from the top-down approach exacerbated by dwindling officer numbers, and move towards neighbourhood policing methods.

Labour will be judged on its ability to fix the mess the Tories have left the country in. The best way to fix the justice system is to put aside populist posturing and get to work making sure that our system treats everyone fairly from start to finish, delivers swift and proportionate outcomes, and crucially, prevents future offending. It’s not good enough to just appear “tougher” than the Tories on crime - Labour needs to ensure a justice system under their control gets better results.

Lauren Davison is the Women and Equalities Officer for the Young Fabians, and Open Labour’s Policy Officer. She is a freelance researcher and has an MSc in criminology. She currently resides in Stoke-on-Trent, where she is a Labour candidate in the 2023 May elections. Her policy and research interests include prisons, the far right and radicalisation.

Illustration: Mariota Spens

HOW THE TORIES WRECKED THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

and How Labour Can Fix It

The images in the past year of sewage and other runoff pouring into our rivers and coasts serve as a perfect visual metaphor for the Tories’ catastrophic mismanagement and neglect of our natural environment. It is the result of a lack of strategy, a lack of effective regulation, and a lack of investment. Most of all, it is the result of a fundamental inability and refusal to grasp the severity of the crisis facing nature in this country.

Conservation charities, including the RSPB and National Trust, have highlighted the risks to nature posed by the Government’s plan to pass the Retained EU Law bill. This bill will scrap hundreds of vital environmental regulations putting habitats and species across the country at risk. And on farming subsidies, the government’s Environmental Land Management Scheme is worth 30% less to farmers than the old EU subsidies – which makes it much harder for farmers to make the necessary transition to sustainable farming.

This follows a pattern of failure on the natural environment in the past thirteen years. We have the lowest level of biodiversity in the G7, and have failed to meet fourteen of the nineteen international Aichi targets agreed in 2010 for stopping biodiversity loss. The Government’s own Office of Environment Protection declared in January that the Government is not meeting any of the targets in it’s 25year plan for nature. It is a devastating record of failure.

Not only is it absolutely imperative that we halt the decline of nature and restore it for the sake of the planet and future generations, but the public also strongly supports action to protect the natural environment. The Labour Climate and Environment Forum’s research shows voters believe that the top three priorities for Labour on nature and the environment should be cleaning up our water, protecting nature, and sustainable food production.

Labour must obviously scrap the REUL Bill to protect key environmental regulations. To clean up our waterways, Labour is already committed to increasing fines and sanctioning water bosses at companies discharging sewage, as well as increasing investment. I would suggest however that given the state of the industry, the party should look at nationalisation as a pragmatic solution to ensure that water is managed in the public interest.

On farming, it is clear that Labour recognises that nature can only be protected and restored through policy that combines sustainable food production with biodiversity. To make this possible, Labour should work with farmers on the basis that it will be pro-farmer, as long as farmers are pro-environment. In practice, this should mean Labour committing to greater ELMS funding, in return for a more rapid transition to sustainable farming, through reduced synthetic inputs, land use changes, and reduced meat production (as recommended by the CCC).

Labour will also need to work with local communities to protect nature. Creating a Community Right to Buy to protect local nature-rich areas, devolving aspects of environmental responsibility, and working with conservation charities on best practice will all be important steps, as well as being careful of corporate greenwashing in the form of ‘carbon offset’ forests, which often do not serve the best interests of nature.

It is also vital that Labour engages more effectively on the international stage than the Tories, who were virtually absent from COP15. Labour should show that Britain can lead the way in protecting and restoring nature, and in efforts to protect nature in the rest of the world, such as by working with Lula’s government in Brazil.

The government has often set and then failed to meet, targets on biodiversity protection and recovery. Labour must avoid this mistake, by taking clear action and providing the necessary investment to secure our natural environment for future generations.

CLARK BEKEN

Clark Beken is a student and the Young Fabians Blog Editor. He was Chair of the Young Fabians Environment Network in 2022.

THE DIRE

CONSEQUENCES OF CAMERON’S ‘GREEN CRAP’ CUTS

The decision by David Cameron in 2013 to ‘cut the green crap’, scrapping the funding of many renewable energy policies such as home insulation programmes, and blocking the construction of onshore wind farms, was an unfounded u-turn to garner public support through the small amount it would knock off household energy bills.

However, as with other Tory cuts over the past thirteen years they have only become more costly over time, in this instance exacerbated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and leaving households and businesses across the country collectively paying billions more for energy. It has also hindered the pursuit towards net zero.

Scrapping home insulation programmes, blocking onshore renewables and failing to maintain adequate gas storage facilities are just a few of Cameron’s failings on renewable energy policy that undermined the country’s energy security and added billions to energy bills. What this flawed outlook illustrates is something which has consistently plagued the strategic thinking of the various Conservative governments since 2010 - short-termism. The constant focus on shortterm solutions to complex crises is an ideological trapping that has hamstrung the ability of the Tories to govern effectively, and is partially why they have experienced so much instability over the past decade.

Rishi Sunak’s support of the Cameron-era bans on onshore turbines during the Conservative leadership contest last summer, and his continual flirtation with the worst elements of nimbyism present within his party, show that the Tories are unable to move on from this flawed outlook on green policies. Cameron underestimated public support for green policies back in 2013, and his successors have continued to do so. The environment regularly polls as the most important issue concerning voters

after the economy and the NHS, further cementing the foolishness of the government to continually ignore these issues.

This climbdown from pro-renewable policies had an immediate impact upon the UK’s decarbonisation efforts, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine last year further compounded the damage of this decision. The ban on building onshore wind farms and other measures left the country more reliant upon gas and thus hit harder by rising gas prices. Research by Carbon Brief highlights the extent to which households are paying the price for this decision, with national energy bills totalling £13bn higher, or £220 per household, than if the policies had not been scrapped under the January 2023 price cap. These cuts have also harmed the renewable jobs market, with a Grantham Research Institute study highlighting a significant decline in the number of green employment opportunities, which remains below the number present nationally a decade ago.

As energy bills are forecast to remain very high in the run-up to the next general election, it is imperative for Labour to offer a long-term plan that rebuilds our energy security, boosts the economy, and puts the country back on a viable path towards net zero. The ‘Green Prosperity Plan’ announced at Labour Party Conference this past September goes some way towards tackling this significant challenge, and it must become a pillar of Labour’s next manifesto offering. In addition to this though Labour must not give in to the inevitable NIMBY resistance, and obstructive planning laws must be eased to allow green infrastructure to be built at the pace required.

Only Labour can resolve this renewable policy mess created by the Conservatives, and it should do so with confidence due to the wealth of public support behind green policies. A long-term green agenda is the right way to improve our energy security, bring down energy bills, fight climate change and grow the economy.

TOM ROBERTS

Tom Roberts is the Policy Officer for the West Midlands Young Fabians. He has recently completed a Masters in Politics at the University of Birmingham, with his interests including voter behaviour and constitutional reform’.

A PERSPECTIVE FROM ITALY

Our sister youth-wing from Italy, the Federazione Dei Giovani Socialisti (F.G.S.), offer their persective on the challenges facing Britain and the Labour Party.

Independence and attachment to national sovereignty seem to be the dominant features of the UK. The tight connection between a winning economic strategy and these features has determined political choices.

As Europeans and Pro-Europeans, we think that these choices, in the context of not just a European but a globalised economy, represent a way to reinforce the socio-economic structures, as a rediscovery of the country’s own imperial vocation.

This also includes the context of the 2019 General Election, which has been interpreted beyond British borders as the umpteenth defeat of the Labour consensus that, in hopes of guaranteeing economic and social security, has become neutral, undefined and inconsistent in position. However, the lack of consensus and identity of the Labour Party aren’t related exclusively to Brexit; it is essential to highlight that the Party has lost approval due to questionable leadership, an insufficient strategy and not giving the right weight to its economic and social proposals. Therefore, the Labour Party has increased its political consensus thanks to the chaotic and divisive mood of the Conservatives and the revival of its historical labour principles instead of the radical ones.

Today’s situation is this: the internal British political debate appears to be much more polarised to the detriment of the solidity of institutions. The fault lines within Scotland and Northern Ireland have sharpened; the British ministries and agencies both have difficulties resetting the activities that previously functioned regularly in the European scenario due to the agreements with Brussels. Despite the British recovery after the agreements with the EU and the trilateral alliance with Australia and the United States, an outburst towards a Global Britain is currently unrealistic. England, with an equal population and GDP to Italy, can’t be defined as a major economic power like the United States and China. Nevertheless, the uphill road has just begun and a phase of instability is necessary. As young Italians, we think that England has always represented an open, dynamic country with large

The F.G.S. Foreign Affairs Department

Brunella Cocca

Caterina Maria Busato

Beatrice Pedini

opportunities to study, work and do business. However, it is a matter of fact that freedom of movement between EU residents and the UK has ended. This hasn’t only had an impact on the travel industry, but also on the labour market.

The EU is a large labour market for UK workers and vice versa. The number of skilled and semi-skilled workers from the EU, that moved to the UK, is becoming less and less. Not to mention the fact that many large companies, such as Barclay's, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, have moved their offices from London to the EU, creating a depressing environment for economic growth.

European citizens who want to move to the UK for a long-term stay or for business purposes (i.e. for more than six months) will need to fulfil the UK Government’s immigration conditions, such as applying for a visa.

Moreover, the UK has decided to withdraw from the Erasmus+ exchange programme, hence European students will no longer be able to participate in exchange programs in the United Kingdom. On a commercial level, the goods traded between the UK and the EU will not be subject to rates or quotas. However new procedures are already in place for the transfer of goods to and from the UK, such as border controls on compliance with internal market rules (must comply with health, safety, environmental standards etc.) or applicable UK legislation. This corresponds to an increase in bureaucracy and additional costs.

Furthermore, UK companies no longer have the automatic right to offer their services in Europe, so if they want to continue operating in the European Union they will need to settle themselves in the EU.

From a European perspective, in the past years especially, Britain’s reputation has decreased. Nonetheless, we continue to see England as the great nation it has been in the past and modern history, in terms of cultural and linguistic expansion and outreach, as the country which has influenced European economic and social policies.