Whatever happened to social mobility?

Simplification in politics is often necessary. This means breaking down fifty page policy papers in to sound bites or adverts or spewing a biblically sized party manifesto in three minutes on the doorstep of a disillusioned voter that is preparing to take great pleasure in slamming their front door in your face. It prevents the distortion of a clear message and allows for the digestion of often complicated debates. This form of simplification, although it may not always be underpinned by a positive message, is to all intents and purposes necessary for the mass consumption of politics. No one truly believes, within the political classes at least, that the British economy can be compared to a household in debt. However, it serves the purpose of explaining and personalising complicated deficit economics. There is one simplification however, that rather than be the tool for explanation, has become the policy itself.

New Labour tended to define social mobility as an ever expanding middle class. It was a metaphorical synonym for their real aim, which was to improve the living standards of those in the bottom quartile. They made accessing debt facilities cheaper and in turn, combined with favourable exporting conditions and a strong financial centre Britain found itself in an economic environment where it became natural for people to live beyond their means because there would be “no bust” this time around. John Lanchester in Whoops, estimates that the debt to earnings percentage stands at 140% in Britain compared to the continent which hovers at around 50%. As a result, one could realistically define these improvements as cosmetic. This is especially so when we consider the strong evidence which shows that the wealth created during the economic boom stratified at a faster rate than during the Conservative era that preceded it.

The issue is not just that it didn’t happen; “it” being everyone waking up as Middle Class. Rather the issue here is that the simplification that was presented as politically plausible was in reality a fallacy when combined with the policies and culture of the New Labour government. Social Mobility is the measure of a society’s ability to have people both rise and fall. The corollary of this of course is that increased social equality makes social mobility easier. This is because the more equal a society is the smaller the divide between the top and bottom and as a result the easier it is to move between wealth brackets. New Labour however, spent their time in office determined to avoid the topic of social equality lest they resurrect that old dichotomy of “electability vs. principles.”

Blair and New Labour shied away from debates on social equality and attempted to buy off the working classes and lower middle class with an unsustainable increase in spending on the welfare state. They expanded university access without improving the education system, meaning that many of the very people they were trying to help ended up in substandard higher education institutions. The elites however, carried on as ever attending the very institutions they had always attended fearing that only positive discrimination, as opposed to real improvements in education, could unseat them from their Russell Group place. Trying to tackle this, New Labour created Academy Colleges so as to increase funding to state schools. What they didn’t tell anyone was that it wasn’t the private or charitable sectors pumping most of the money in to academies. Under Labour, state spending per head on the children who attended academies was more than at their comprehensive equivalents. All we learnt from that experiment was that more money and nicer buildings make students happy and they may or may not get better grades (the academic success of academies is chequered). On the topic of improved social mobility the Labour Party were more trigger happy cowboys than coherent reformers.

As much of New Labour’s legacy (/ad hoc policies) is washed away by the realities of recession economics, we must accept that Blair and those who supported him, made little head way in to creating sustainable structures that improved social mobility in Britain (OECD statistics prove this). What filled this vacuum was a cultural shift towards the disinclination of shared economic responsibility that took three forms.

The first form was that being rich alone was service enough to society. Mandelson shone an unsubtle light on Labour’s absolution of their responsibilities by stating that New Labour was “comfortable with people becoming filthy rich”. Thatcher allowed people to get “filthy rich,” Labour made it cool, trendy and acceptable. Ha-Joon Chang is right however. The CEO’s of multinationals now being paid more than their lowest paid professional by 100 times in contrast to the 60’s and 70’s where that gap was closer to 10 times are not worth their pay packets. He provides evidence to show that not only are they not 10 times more profitable than their predecessors they are on average less so. Furthermore, in real (and comparative) terms many corporations pay their staff, who have a higher propensity to spend and therefore stimulate the economy via consumption, less. This may have been forgivable during the good times (it wasn’t), but the financial crisis has shone light on a win-win culture where the rich are rewarded for failure as well as success.

The second aspect of the cultural shift was that corporations were absolved of all duties beyond job creation. It has become a fall back when a company’s moral compass is in question to state that “they create several thousand jobs for the British economy.” This justification has gone on to support unpaid taxes, weapons sales to authoritarian states, the treatment of foreigners as slave labour and the failings that led to a recession in 2008. You then have the major gas providers who have by and large increased their rates. The only exception to this rule has been, unsurprisingly, The Co-Operative who have cut rates by 2%; they however only provide for 60,000 homes. According to Ofgen, although costs to energy suppliers are falling below 2008 levels, the charges to the consumer is rising leading to nigh on record profits in an industry that has the ability to directly affect the spending power of even middle income earners. Corporations have never been known for their inherent benevolence (regardless of what Michael Moore says), however in recent years we have come to expect almost nothing from them but jobs and they have come to deliver on that contract.

The final aspect that underpinned the decline of shared economic responsibility has been the marginalisation of the working class. Mired in their snobbery, it took New Labour too long to realise that not everyone wanted to attend university to study History but rather some people enjoyed manual professions. Better late than never, they responded accordingly with apprenticeship schemes. However, the damage was deeper than that. They created a society where the wealthy were glamorised and accepted into the political elite as inherently good and proper. Peddling a dream that any and every one could be middle class, they intentionally marginalised those who did or could not buy in to that aurora-borealis as lazy and undeserving. It was only at the end during the recession that Labour moved against the wealthy, but for years previously Blair had created and encouraged a Daily Mail society that attacked those on the margins of his political experiment. It was unsurprising then that when the financial crisis hit and people saw the extent to which bankers had lived it large that graduate applications to banking increased astronomically, money had become the new moral currency. So why are we then surprised that in many communities in Briton people would rather live on the dole than earn the minimum wage in a job that years of marketing and political indoctrination have served to dehumanise? Why should we be surprised that the corollary of Blair’s Britain is one where people riot not for food or against political subjugation but for Nike trainers and plasma t.v.’s? New Labour made consumerism the standard; it became a standard that could only be achieved via heavy borrowing for most.

Ultimately, the starting premise was a dangerous one, this being the idea that everyone could be middle class. The premise was dangerous because it was based on those at the bottom moving up without an acceptance that those at the top should move closer to the bottom. On the contrary it encouraged the rich to become even more distant and devolved of social responsibility. Ignoring those at the top was the first mistake, but this led to others. New Labour, unable to create a culture of shared economic responsibility found itself buying off the working and lower middle classes via astronomical increases in welfare spending which depended on the constant consumption of those with a high propensity to spend, the poorest in society. At the end of it all we are no closer to social mobility, in fact Britain according to the OECD is edging closer and closer to America (and in some cases Portugal) on the topic of social immobility a trend that has continued with the coalition, not begun by it.

So as our society continues to obsess about social mobility, we should always remember New Labour’s example of what that can lead to when we are ignorant of social equality.

Babs Williams is the President of the Queen Mary Student Union and former Chairman of New Turn.

Those on the Left should emphasise their green credentials now more than ever

A couple of weeks ago in Manchester a life-long red emerged as the green giant of football. At a World Green Building Week meet Gary Neville spoke of how building his own home led him to develop a green conscience. So strong is this zeal now that his new eco-home is on track to reach the lofty heights of Level Six of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Mr Neville's experience reflects a broader trend in private individuals and businesses. It is predicted that by 2014 the green economy will have grown by 40% since 2007, as in tough fiscal times the private sector perceives the financial and ethical benefits of the less-with-more mantra of environmental planning. But this remarkable growth is in danger of being lost as Cameron's promise of 'the greenest government ever' is tested to its core. The green economy grows despite the recession, perhaps even because of it, but without government investment in long-term infrastructure this will prove a short-lived boom. As Cameron looks to U-turn on the third runway, and Osborne champions gas energy over renewables, the government displays the same short-sightedness that New Labour supposedly showed on the economy. As such, Ed Miliband has an opportunity to seize the green initiative and hold the government bang to rights on their environmental promises. For economic, ethical and electoral reasons, this is a must. 

Firstly, environmentalism could and should be the key strand of an alternative approach to the economic crisis. As Osborne introduces swingeing public sector cuts those on the Left should promote a balanced relationship between state and private business. Government investment in fibre optic cables and renewable energy supplies would provide vital foundations for green industry, which in turn will provide growth, augmented tax revenues, and much needed jobs.

Moreover, while Osborne reiterates the need to strengthen Britain's resilience to volatile world markets, he fails to recognise that any work in this direction will be undone if we find ourselves plagued by rising energy costs, as finite energy resources finally run dry. The Confederation of British Industry believes that green business could halve our trade deficit by 2014-15 – the potential of renewable energy to make us more self-sufficient is clear.

On the economy in general the Tories want to be seen as putting genuine long-term recovery before a quick-fix to the financial crisis. Thus, we are encouraged to consider the supposed long-term benefits of current government spending cuts. But on energy, Osborne spurns long-term stability via renewables in favour of increased reliance on imported gas, a short-term solution. The Tories are content to sacrifice jobs for long-term economic recovery, but not willing to plan long-term environmental measures.

In ethical terms, Labour has a duty to its core voter-ship to champion green infrastructure. Central investment is vital to ensure that the benefits of environmental planning are not confined to the Gary Nevilles of this country, to a limited band of wealth that can afford to go green. The large-scale acquisition of wind energy would reap rewards for the whole national grid. At a global level the effects of global warming are already being felt. Michael Zammit Cutajar, the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, has noted that 'climate change is not just a distant threat but a present danger', as global warming already wipes a predicted 1.6% annually from global GDP. Just as poorer, developing countries like Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands are feeling this pain now, it will be poorer individuals and smaller, emerging businesses that will suffer most when the effects of climate change and resource scarcity really hit Europe.

Thus, for the benefit of ordinary working people in this country Labour must turn the tide on the environment. He may be clinging to the flotsam of his 2010 manifesto, but Nick Clegg was right this week to highlight the decline of environmental issues in mainstream debate. There’s a perception that ‘the economy’ and ‘the environment’ are distinct policy areas. This is damaging, as it relegates environmental sustainability below economic stability, leading to suggestions that the two are simultaneously incompatible. Hence Osborne’s speech at the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, in which he stated that  ‘we’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business’. On the contrary, environmental planning should be a variable considered in all areas of economic policy.

At a perhaps more cynical level, if nothing else the infusion of red with green has the potential to attract more votes for Miliband at the next election. Gordon Brown lost large swathes of middle-class business people in 2010. As private green industry booms pro-green policy has the potential to claw back at least some of these votes.  Miliband has already started in this direction, as he spoke of sparking a 'green industrial revolution' in the Huffington Post last week. Labour needs to vehemently pursue this line. In the same way Cameron inches to the right to accommodate UKIP sympathisers, so Labour should move to accommodate Green Party supporters, many of whom moved away from Labour at the last election. The new Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has the potential to wreak havoc on green policy in the very near future. Infinitely more established than the Green Party, Labour might capitalise on this sense of impending  doom by re-branding themselves as the mainstream green party, and thereby attracting the support of idealist Green Party advocates.

For economic, ethical and electoral reasons then, there is a great incentive for Labour to attempt a significant re-casting as the party that can realistically deliver green investment. In this age of broken trust in politics, the Left must seek to replace the culture of inane global summits and missed environmental targets with investment in tangible environmental infrastructure. The private sector is chomping at the bit – its appetite demonstrates that green subvention is realistic and would be well-received. So as the green economy stalls just at the moment when government must step in and invest, Labour must seize the moment.

Joel Duddell

Interview with Andrew Adonis

As author of Tony Blair’s reforms to the education system, Minister for Schools and Transport Secretary, Lord Andrew Adonis was one of the most important shapers of domestic policy in the New Labour government.

Born in 1963, for much of his childhood he was brought up in care before winning a local education authority scholarship to Kingham High boarding school. From there his rise was meteoric: he graduated with a first in Modern History from Keble College Oxford, before being appointed to a fellowship in History & Politics at Nuffield College. He combined this with his duties as an Oxford city councillor for the SDP from 1987-91, and then after stints at the Financial Times and the Observer he worked for Tony Blair at the Number 10 policy unit from 1998-2005, where he drove Labour’s education agenda. The creation of academies (independently run state schools) has revolutionized the state sector, with results far exceeding expectations. He talks to Jonathan Metzer about his experiences in the last government and the challenges ahead.

As a former Oxford academic and SDP councillor what set you on the path to becoming a Labour cabinet minister? Which people have influenced you the most on that journey?

Roy Jenkins and Tony Blair. Roy taught me that the only point of being in national politics is to do something rather than be something. No-one ever remembers former ministers, however senior, only the one who achieve something. Tony Blair taught me you could lead the Labour party decisively in the direction of radical reform.

What do you think is the key to a good state education system?

Strong institutions and outstanding teachers. The academies programme has gone a long way to securing the first of these. Empowering schools and – in particular – great headteachers and govenors, has had a dramatic effect on results. Towards the end of my new book, Education, Education, Education, I set out some of the remaining reforms including reforming the post-16 qualification system; expanding under-fives provision and above all a new deal for teachers. We need to make teaching the number one profession in the country. Teach First has gone a long way to achieving that but we must go further. My ideas on what we should be doing are all set out in my book.

When you worked for Tony Blair at the Policy Unit and then as Minister for Schools what was it like getting momentum behind the Academies programme?

It was hard work! The first half of my book chronicles the process in detail. I had to drive the whole thing, relentlessly, for ten years! It didn’t help that it took us some time to decide on the academies programme but even once we were up and running we were constantly fighting vested interests, in Whitehall, government and education. At one point I talk about the unholy alliance of the do nothing left and the do nothing right, confronted by that kind of united conservatism, it sometimes seemed as if we’d never get the necessary momentum behind the programme.

You were at the forefront of the failed negotiations between Labour and the Liberal Democrats after the 2010 election: what was it like in that six day period before the formation of the coalition government? Was a Lib-Lab coalition really on the cards?

Nick Clegg was never interested in working with Labour. He strung us along as far as he could in order to get more out of the Tories. The truth of the matter is that he had made up his mind. He liked Cameron and realised they weren’t too far apart ideologically. Where they were – notably on Europe – they ignored the topic.

What do you make of the coalition government so far?

It’s intellectually bankrupt. It came to power promising radical constitutional reform and austerity to cure recession. Both parts of that equation have clearly failed. All the big Lib Dem constitutional reforms have collapsed. On the economy, Plan A has failed and there is no Plan B.

As chief architect of the Academies programme what do you think about the policies Michael Gove is pursuing as Education Secretary?

Instead of tinkering with GCSEs, Gove should be pursuing real reform of post-16 qualifications. We need an ABacc similar to the IB and a corresponding TechBacc. He’s using up energy on a repackaging that is ideologically driven and gives a taste of the direction a Tory majority government would go. Their right flank believe that a certain proportion of the population should fail to get any qualifications on principle. This is educationally retrograde.

What do you think will be Labour's biggest challenges if we form a government after the next election?

Reshaping our economy to work for the many not the few. We need a strategy for jobs and growth that will work; a strategy that doesn’t leave the weakest in society to fend for themselves; a strategy that doesn’t lead to an unemployment crisis for young people. Who knows how many different plans the Tories will get through before the next election? Ours needs to be ready to go on day one.

What is your advice to anyone thinking of a career in public service?

Consider Teach First. There is no better route into public service and no better first entry on your CV. Oxford should be providing two, three, four times the number of Teach First teachers as it did last year. Inspirational teachers who went to Oxbridge is the most effective long term solution to the access challenges faced by both universities.

Andrew Adonis’ book Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools is published by Biteback and available here: https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/education-education-education-paperback

Labour doesn't need the Lib Dems, it needs a majority

Now that we have reached the halfway point of this parliament, commentators and politicians alike have begun discussing the next election in earnest; a popular topic for many on the left has been the possibility of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2015. Polly Toynbee is particularly fond of this idea, and having written on the topic at the end of August has restated her support for such an allegiance in the Guardian’s Comment is free. 

Toynbee accuses those in the Labour Party who object to such an eventuality as mere tribalists, “swearing vengeance” and “spitting expletives”, assuming that objections to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition must be based only on “cynical electoral self-interest”. Yet the evidence of the past two and a half years indicates that the idea of a progressive coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour is illusory: Clegg’s party, as long as it is Clegg’s party, remains ideologically incompatible with the Labour Party. The Orange Book wing which dominates the leadership of the party is a far more natural ally to the Conservative Party: it is no surprise that Danny Alexander, Ed Davey, Steve Webb and Clegg himself were the favoured candidates in a recent survey of Conservative MPs to identify trustworthy Lib Dem Ministers. No doubt David Laws would also be listed amongst those names were it not for his regrettable expenses hiccough. Polly Toynbee does acknowledge this as a problem for a potential coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, yet she speaks of “[relegating the] Clegg Orange Bookers” as if dismantling the leadership of the party would be a fairly simple political move. Whispers that Ed Davey might be eyeing the leadership of the party following Clegg’s seemingly inevitable demise suggest that it may not be so simple after all. Yet even if the Orange Bookers were deposed, the problem of the rest of the party remains, which, almost in its entirety, “supported the formation of the coalition and then repeatedly rolled over and had their tummies tickled by the Tories on the economy, higher education – and perhaps most grievously of all, the NHS.” (Mark Ferguson, labourlist) Not only are there ideological incompatibilities between the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat front bench, but there are also deep issues of trust following the actions of the majority of the parliamentary party in coalition.

“Can Labour win? Extraordinarily, that looks not just possible but likely,” admits Polly Toynbee, so why should the Labour Party invest in the prospect of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats? Labour should be buoyed by the numerical make-up of Parliament and the unpopularity of the coalition government and make confident steps over the next two years to turn disaffection with the governing parties into genuine popularity for the Labour Party. Bafflingly, Peter Hain argued in his memoirs, published in paperback in August, that Labour would struggle to win a majority in 2015 and should prepare for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. This is not the attitude that should be taken by prominent figures in the party, and it is disheartening to see: Labour’s unquestionable (and at present attainable) aim should be to win a majority in 2015.

Moreover, the likely fate of the Liberal Democrats in the 2015 general election provides another sticking point where a coalition is concerned, one which Polly Toynbee seems to forget. It seems inevitable at this point that the Liberal Democrats will receive a drubbing in the election: current polling suggests that they may come out of it having lost as many as 20 of their 57 seats. The message if such an eventuality occurred would be clear, namely that the actions of the Liberal Democrats in government were immensely unpopular. For all her wistfulness about the prospect of a leftist coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems, Toynbee seems to ignore the fact that bringing the Liberal Democrats back into government after 2015 is likely to be an immensely unpopular, even undemocratic, decision: it would be out of the question to bring a party into government following a resounding rejection by the electorate. Not to mention the fact that the party will most likely find themselves in something of a quandary after the 2015 election, having suffered for five years in coalition and suffered for one very long night at the hands of the electorate. Removing the Orange Bookers before the election will soften this impact somewhat, but if Nick Clegg leads the party into the election then the fallout will be enormous, and what is left of the party after 2015 will not be fit to govern.

The Labour Party should leave channels with the Lib Dems open in the interest of plurality. But such channels should be limited (think the occasional text to Vince Cable) rather than open, and Labour should not be focussing their preparation on governing with the Liberal Democrats after the general election (though to neglect that eventuality entirely would, of course, be irresponsible).  Polly Toynbee seems to believe that the Labour party needs the Liberal Democrats in order to be a worthy progressive social democratic party, arguing that the last Labour era would have “[been better] in coalition with the Lib Dems”: “no Iraq, no civil liberties abuses, less defence spending, no soaring jail numbers, stronger climate change action, and bolder Europeanism.” Yet the Labour Party of 2012 is not the same Labour Party that governed from 1997 to 2010. Ed Miliband won the leadership election on a platform of change, and the party’s period in opposition has so far been encouragingly self-reflexive, and as the policy review gathers momentum the Labour Party only stands to grow more. The Liberal Democrats are at present a politically and morally bankrupt force, and Labour does not need them. Labour can learn the lessons of the New Labour government without the input of a party which, given its conduct in the last two and a half years of government, is in no position to be giving political lessons.

Matthew Case

Incompetance, sexism, classism and corruption: it is time the public demanded more from our ministers

Following Andrew Mitchell’s appalling comments last week, the latest in a long line of ministerial cock-ups from this coalition, I ask why are these ministers not being sacked?

As one of his local constituents, and having had the pleasure of meeting him, I can say with a degree of authority that Andrew Mitchell is not a pleasant person. The Chief Whip’s comments to an unlucky policeman last week therefore came as no surprise to me. What was surprising however is that he is still in a job. We may argue about what exactly he said, but there is no denying that Mitchell effectively broke the law by abusing a policeman, and could have certainly been arrested. Furthermore, the classist tone of his comments, labelling the policeman a ‘pleb’ were not only offensive and unacceptable, they revealed what lies beneath the ‘all in this together’ veneer of the Tory Party. Such a slip will have no doubt infuriated Number 10. However, despite outrage from the public, the Police Federation, the opposition, and I’m sure, from David Cameron, Andrew Mitchell appears to have weathered the storm and remains in a job.

This is a common trend in this government. Minister after minister has cocked up, faced intense media pressure, yet remained where they are. Admittedly, there have been a few exceptions such as Liam Fox, Chris Huhne and David Laws. However, the Liam Fox and Adam Werritty affair exposed the kind of sleaze, nepotism and corruption that no minister could survive. Similarly, the suspicion that Huhne lied over his speeding points and the impending court case would have forced anyone out. And finally, David Laws’ demotion due to his fraudulent expenses was only short lived.

Others like Theresa May, however, have weathered considerable pressure to resign.  Her incompetence in the border agency pilot scheme affair and her fumbling over the deportation of Abu Hamza demonstrated serious shortcomings, which appear to have been overlooked. Similar ineptitude was demonstrated back in July 2010 when Michael Gove was forced to apologise to both the Commons and council leaders due to errors on the Building Schools for the Future programme list. He too, remained in his position. Finally, one can almost feel sorry for Andrew Lansley and the torrid time his NHS reforms have endured. Constant U-turns and a rolling out of ‘listening’ exercises decimated both his initial policy and confidence in him, yet, until the recent reshuffle, he remained in his role.  

Such policy failures have also been accompanied by buffoonish comments, which too have been overlooked. Whatever is said, it seems that a rushed apology and claims that they were misunderstood is enough to save a minister’s skin. The most notable of these slip-ups saw Ken Clarke declare to Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5 Live that there are different categories of rape which are not all as serious as each other. There were also the remarkable comments from Vince Cable who ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch. Although we may agree with his sentiment, it was certainly not appropriate for the business secretary to display such tribalism. He showed a clear disregard for the impartiality he was expected to demonstrate in his quasi-judicial role regarding the BSkyB bid. Admittedly he was stripped of all his powers regarding media policy, but he remained in his cabinet position nevertheless.

The man that replaced him in the BSkyB deliberations, however, demonstrated the worst behaviour of any minister in this government still in a job. Jeremy Hunt and the undeniable sleaze that surrounded him, his advisor Adam Smith (who was actually forced to quit), and their contact with James Murdoch was a sickening episode which made Vince Cable look impartial! Again however, Jeremy Hunt remained in his job.

So why have the coalition’s ministers escaped the chop on so many occasions? One can suggest a series of explanations. Firstly, there is a worrying lack of talent on the Conservative and Lib Dem backbenches, a dearth of people that could step into the ministerial breach. The fact that Ken Clarke was brought back in the first place suggests this, along with the failure of some new Tory faces like Baroness Warsi. Secondly, one could put it down to a weak PM, an interpretation I’m sure all of us in the Labour Party would suggest, and one supported by Cameron’s persistent failure to control his own backbenchers. Thirdly however, these ministerial great escapes are also down to a weak opposition. For example, Gove’s errors over the BFfS programme were made during the Labour Leadership campaign so the preoccupied opposition struggled to place him under substantial pressure. Ed Miliband also made concerted attempts to put pressure on Ken Clarke, and Jeremy Hunt, demanding that both of them resign, but to no avail.

Perhaps an even more worrying explanation however is that the country just doesn’t care. Ministers can stay in their jobs whatever the mistake made, as the public have become so disenchanted with party politics that their votes will not change either way. As “politicians are all the same”, the public simply believe that the replacement will not be much better. If this is the reason then there are several fundamental issues that need solving to increase public trust in politicians, and re-engage the public in electoral politics or change our system to allow other, growingly popular forms of political action to be recognised, like protests.

More fundamental, general causes for the greater durability of ministers like this appear more plausible, as the decline in individual ministerial responsibility is not new. It is a trend that has gathered pace over previous decades. Ministerial great escapes were rare in early post-war British politics. For example, in 1954 the Agriculture minister Thomas Duggle resigned over the mistakes of his civil servants. Later, in 1967, then Chancellor James Callaghan resigned after the pound was devalued. However, for the same policy failure in the 1990’s Tory Chancellor Norman Lamont was not forced to resign over Black Wednesday. Labour, in government and opposition in recent years also appeared more lenient. Ed Balls as Education secretary in the last government passed the buck on the failed marking of SATS, and over the appalling treatment of Baby P. To give just another example whilst we have been in opposition, Diane Abbott was also lucky to stay in her job after her foolish comments over how white people like to “Divide and Rule”.

Therefore, although the coalition’s ministers appear to have been particularly lucky, individual ministerial responsibility has been declining for decades. The cause of this therefore is likely to be a long term shift in the type of character’s in politics and public expectations of politicians (although one could certainly suggest that some of the more specific reasons suggested have contributed in this government). This long term decline in standards and expectations needs to be halted. There needs to be a far firmer set of boundaries that ministers must adhere to and that we can all understand. These would remove the current grey areas which allow a minister like Andrew Mitchell or Jeremy Hunt to escape an impending demotion. In short, as a general public we need to halt ministerial complacency and expect a far higher standard of behaviour and competence from those in charge.

Joe Collin

One Term in Opposition

After a tough first year in opposition where Ed Miliband was wholeheartedly written-off by large sections of the media, the narrative has changed. Flatlining growth, a series of U-turns after an ill thought-through budget and infighting between the coalition partners has turned the ever capricious media against the government. Journalists are beginning to take Ed seriously, and there is now hope that people will sit up and take notice when his comprehensive policy review is presented.

Boldness is opposition is necessary and Ed has made a good move in appointing Jon Cruddas to lead the policy review. A left-winger who worked closely with Tony Blair, Cruddas is difficult to place on the political spectrum and will certainly not be in thrall to conventional thinking. Including Blair himself in the project is another clever move – Labour is at its best when it draws on both wings of the party and Tony Blair is the most successful and experienced leader Labour has to offer. He will have plenty of invaluable advice for government next time around.

But with the economy in such a state this policy review will not be able to make big spending promises – nor indeed should it. The 1997 election promise to stick to the Tory spending plans was what really made conservative voters stand up and take notice. Even though we made vast improvements to public services and were not the authors of the financial crisis, spending did get out of control in the last term and we must confront the hard fact that in the eyes of the public Labour arrives in government with noble ideas and spends the country into bankruptcy to try and implement them. ‘With you in tough times’ is the right slogan and we must concentrate on policies that will improve the country without breaking the bank. The riots last summer painfully exposed just how weak the sense of community has become in more deprived areas of the country, and policies such as some kind of national service for teenagers and compulsory parenting classes should be seriously considered.

We must also be disciplined in opposing the government. As tempting as it is to characterize the Tories as the ‘nasty party’ and make barbed comments about the number of privately-educated ministers seated around the cabinet table, this would be an electoral cul-de-sac. It is true that the number of state-educated ministers means that at present our education system is not succeeding but to attack the government using the language of class is partisan and cheap. The British public do not especially care where people come from, what matters is what they are doing now, and the ‘charge’ of being educated at Eton pales into nothingness when set next to what we should really be roasting the coalition about: total lack of direction. It is becoming increasingly difficult to work out what it is that the Prime Minister stands for other than keeping D. W. D. Cameron in Number 10. The Omnishambles Budget was totally devoid of purpose, taking with one hand and giving back with the other, and most of the key measures have since been reversed! Most importantly, Osborne’s policies have choked the economy into complete stagnation and he seems to have no idea how to get things moving again.

Labour’s best strategy is to concentrate on how a government that looked so shiny and new when Cameron and Clegg stood in the Rose Garden and pledged their love ‘till 2015 do us part’ already looks as directionless as a government coming to the end of a long spell in power. Conservative voters will not be wooed by being lectured about how morally inferior they are for voting Tory. Instead we must show that their negative conceptions about Labour are unfounded and how we are the party who will govern best for the entire country, delivering fairness without harming aspiration. If we do this, we may only be in for a short spell in opposition.

Jonathan Metzer

Welcome to Look Left

Hello and welcome to Look Left, the official blog of the Oxford University Labour Club! Over the next few weeks and months prepare yourselves for a high-octane rollercoaster ride of journalism by some of the best minds OULC has to offer. We will have opinion pieces, interviews with key Labour figures and much, much more. (Because I haven't yet got round to asking anyone to contribute) I have kicked things off with our first article about how Labour can make sure that we will only be in opposition for one term, and we would love as many people to contribute as possible. If you are interersted either now or in future, please get in touch with me at jonathan.metzer@worc.ox.ac.uk.

That's all for now!

Jonathan Metzer

Editor