It is not hard to understand why. Despite their cost, lowering taxes is easily understood by a sceptical public and has an immediate impact. But, just as with tax credits, a strategy of reducing taxes for low earners is not, by itself, sufficient. Tax reform needs to be supplemented by ambitious efforts to raise productivity and boost wages if the underlying problems of our low-wage economy are to be addressed.

The living wage (currently £8.55 in London and £7.45 elsewhere) has already secured its place in any future agenda to tackle Britain’s endemic levels of low-paid work. Yet precisely what form this will take remains open to debate. Those who have organised and fought for living wages over many years (including the community activists that first revived the notion of living wages in London’s East End a decade ago) remain wedded to a voluntary approach – seeing a role for government but one that complements rather than erodes the campaign’s civic roots. Others believe government should simply legislate to make the living wage the legal minimum in the belief it will eradicate poverty pay at a stroke.

Government certainly has a role to play in advancing the living wage, as an employer, a procurer of billions of pounds of services and by putting measures in place that support campaigners. But there are sound reasons to think that the government should not legislate for a national living wage.

First, as our recent report Beyond the Bottom Line made clear, the employment effects of raising the minimum wage to the level of the living wage are uncertain and could be large. Our estimates suggest that if a mandatory living wage were introduced across the private sector overall, employer demand for workers would drop by around 160,000. Furthermore, there would be demand for 300,000 fewer young people with intermediate or no qualifications because many employers would want to substitute older, more experienced, workers for younger ones if the wage floor was higher. Labour demand isn’t a predictor of actual jobs losses, because employers can often find ways to raise productivity in response to a higher wage floor. Similar analysis would have predicted a fall in labour demand following the introduction of the minimum wage but there is no evidence that the minimum wage has been associated with job losses. Nevertheless, this analysis should serve as a caution for those calling for the imposition of a statutory living wage in a weak labour market, particularly given its potential impact on the young and low-skilled.

Second, if adopted by government the living wage would inevitably change. Recommendations about the minimum wage are made by the Low Pay Commission (LPC) and are the product of negotiation between employers, unions and experts. The minimum wage rate that emerges each October is therefore a compromise between boosting the wages of the lowest paid workers and what low-wage employers can afford without shedding large numbers of jobs. What’s unique about living wage rates is that they are set by academics purely on the basis of calculations about standards of living and prices, and take no account of the health of the labour market or the wider economy. Calculating a living wage through a consensual process like that used to set the minimum wage would fundamentally alter the character of the living wage by introducing employment considerations into the process. Such a process may produce a state-backed ‘living wage’ but one that is likely to be lower than at present and not recognised by civil society organisations fighting for a living wage.

Third, living wage campaigns are about more than wages. At their best they empower low-paid workers in sectors and occupations largely untouched by traditional union structures, shifting power and resources to those who typically lack both. This is one reason that Citizens UK and other longstanding living wage activists remain opposed to the introduction of a statutory living wage.

We should also remember that ensuring everyone is paid at least a living wage would not, by itself, solve our living standards crisis. No single wage rate can guarantee a decent standard of living for all family types, which is why both living wages rates are premised on a full take-up of tax credits and other in-work benefits. A strong wage floor is vital but we should also work to tackle the wider inequalities in our labour market, which may require more radical solutions.

The living wage is a rare success and it is clear that government needs to do far more to advance coverage across the country. But this does not mean simply pulling levers from Whitehall – as appealing as that quick fix may seem to those who desire a reduction in low pay. Instead, governments at local and national level must think creatively about the role of the living wage as part of a wider and more ambitious agenda to tackle low pay and weak wage growth in Britain.

The Fabians moved into 11 Dartmouth Street in 1928 following the notice to terminate their tenancy of 25 Tothill Street. George Bernard Shaw – a prominent (and rich) member – made this possible by lending them £2500 as a 5 per cent loan to be secured as a mortgage towards the purchase price of £3150. The Executive minutes of Thursday 10 May 1928 note that Messrs Sidney Webb, F.W. Galton, then the General Secretary, and H.J. Laski be appointed to act on behalf of the Society in the acquisition of Dartmouth Street. They duly, as instructed, viewed and approved the suitability of the premises.

The loan from George Bernard Shaw was received with thanks on 21 June 1928. I don’t know if Shaw was being tardy about actually producing the money as the minutes read, “Webb undertook to mention the question of mortgage to Shaw. If this failed, Galton was instructed to take the matter up with the solicitors and the bank…The question of making some grant to our tenants the Railway Club for the termination of their tenancy was deferred”.

The Executive minutes of Thursday 4 October 1928 note Item 5: ”Matters arising from removal. It was agreed that the common room, [which provided the advantages and conveniences of an inexpensive club for members including smoking accommodation, provision for chess and other games and tea and coffee served at low prices] should be re-opened on 15 October and to recommend that a house warming party be arranged for December 13”. It, sadly, was also agreed that the piano “no longer needed for our use, be sold”. (November’s minutes note that it was sold to the Army and Navy Co-op Society for £12). And the problem of the poor Railway Club tenants was resolved as well, in that it was agreed that an allowance of £20 off the quarter’s rent be made.

So how was the move presented to the members in the monthly issues of Fabian News? We learn from July 1928’s Fabian News that “members and friends will learn with regret that after 14 years in its present offices, the Society’s tenancy has been terminated, the premises having been sold for rebuilding”. The loan was mentioned but interestingly, Shaw remained an anonymous donor. Members were informed that the Fabian common room would be closed as the housekeeper would be away so no more refreshments would be served, but that the newspapers and journals would be supplied as usual.

The Society reopened in Dartmouth St on 15 October 1928 and disarmingly apologised in advance for delay in responding to correspondence “due to the disorganisation of the office consequent upon its removal”. Thankfully, the common room opened again and the ‘At Home’ was announced – to be held in the Livingstone Hall, right by Dartmouth Street. Tickets were two shillings and expected to sell out fast, and for that members were offered “coffee, some music and short speeches”. Also on offer was the opportunity to have a look round the new premises.

Well let’s hope that the housewarming party went with a swing, that the coffee went down well, that the speeches were indeed short and the members enjoyed their tours of Dartmouth Street. I can’t help feeling regretful about the loss of the piano. We can imagine – possibly – the Webbs, Shaw, Laski and all, gathered round the Fabian piano in the common room – having dismissed the housekeeper – maybe singing ‘The Fabian Magnificat’, a pastiche composed around that time which begins: ”My soul doth magnify the State and my spirit hath rejoiced in Webb my Saviour”; and ends: ”Glory be to the Fabians and to the Manager and to the Bureaucrat, As it was in Dartmouth Street, And in the Labour Exchange and in the House of Commons. Wages without End.”

As it was in Dartmouth Street! Well let’s hope that Petty France will, in the years ahead, come to represent all that Dartmouth St did, in the hearts and heads of all present and future Fabians.

This week the College of Emergency Medicine highlighted the challenges facing emergency departments across the country with unsustainable workloads and staffing shortages. Whilst the design, funding and running of the emergency care system needs urgent attention it is also a manifestation of a health and social care system under strain and unable to cope with current and future demands. This article highlights some of the strains on the system arguing that prevention is key to delivering a more sustainable model.

Many at the moment feel overwhelmed, with increasing numbers of older patients accessing GPs and attending hospital, often presenting with increasingly high  complexity and dependency. For example, from September to December 2012, 32,000 patients waited more than four hours in A&E, an increase in 38 per cent on the previous quarter, and the highest level since 2003 (DH: Feb 2013) – a sure sign that patients are not receiving care in the right place and at the right time. Other  pressures are mounting in the system with delayed transfers of care, increased waiting times for elective care and missed targets for savings.

Many believe that the system, as currently configured is unsustainable; the current health and social care delivery system is failing to keep pace with the needs of an ageing population, changing burden of disease and rising patient and public expectations. Across the country there are significant challenges, as highlighted by the King’s Fund ‘Transforming the delivery of health and social care.’ (Ham, Dixon and Brooke, 2012), such as:

• significant differences in health outcomes among social groups which is widening not closing (Marmot, 2010);
• UK has 2nd highest rate of mortality in health care among 16 high income nations (Note and McKee 2011);
• 10,000 lives would be saved each year if England achieved cancer survival rates at the level of the European best (DH: 2011);
• 1,500 children a year might not die if UK performed as well as Sweden in treating asthma and pneumonia (Wolfe 2011);
• 3/4s of people with depression and anxiety don’t receive treatment and the extra physical health care caused by mental illness costs NHS £10bn;
• 1 in 10 hospital admission result in some form of harm (HCHC 09);
• 85% of local authorities restrict publicly funded care to substantial/critical needs (Association of Directors of Adult Social Services 2012);
• And stock for specialist housing for older people will need to grow by 40 to 70% over next 20 years (Pannel et all 2012).

In March 2013, the Lancet published a seminal report by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) on UK Health. The report ranked UK 12 out of 19 countries of similar affluence for life expectancy at birth – 68.6 healthy years of life compared to 70.9 healthy years of life in Spain (ranked first) despite the increase in funding into the NHS over the last 10 years. The report re-emphasises that the leading causes of death in the UK are stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer and lower respiratory infections. These are all affected by smoking. In addition, there has been a startling increase in the number of people dying from Alzheimer’s disease (10th leading cause of death), cirrhosis (9th leading cause of death) and drug-use disorders (21st leading cause of death). Their has also been a rise in early deaths among adults aged between 20-54 relating to drink and drug usage and as people live longer, disability (mental, behavioral and musculoskeletal) is becoming more common.

These challenges support the need for the health and social care system to focus more on prevention and early intervention rather than treatment. The newly established Public Health England (‘PHE’) starts work on 1 April 2013 to oversee, protect and improve public health and reduce inequalities. The £5.45bn public health budget is to be discharged to local authorities, who through health and wellbeing boards will tackle public health challenges such as smoking, obesity,  drugs/alcohol, sexual health and loneliness. A new approach is needed, as jobs, homes and families matter more than the diagnosis and treatment of illness in reducing early deaths. A new innovative public health approach, coupled with changes to support people to live in their own homes for longer, increase access to services in the community, use acute hospitals/care homes appropriately and integrate care around the needs of our population will go a long way to ensuring the current system functions more effectively.

Working in the NHS, it feels that the health and social care systems, as currently configured are based on 20^th century organisational structures, practices and payment methods. They are not set up to deal with the demands placed upon it in the 21st century. At the front line, good people across health and social care are struggling to provide integrated care despite the structural inadequacies. Is it sensible to keep supporting the current model or should a new model be adopted?  We look to answer this question next week in the last article of the series.

This short paper, based on data, examines how the marginal constituencies which will decide the next General Election voted in the 2013 local elections.

The 2013 elections took place for the most part in the least Labour-inclined parts of England. They were disproportionately southern and rural, and as well as being areas of traditional Labour weakness they are also – on the evidence of the local elections in 2011 and 2012 – where Labour’s recovery since 2010 has been weakest. The sample of marginal seats available is therefore going to produce a more pessimistic picture for Labour than a set of local elections like 2012 which were mostly in urban areas and represented the northern metropolises, even if no votes had shifted. Even in southern England, the areas where Labour is most powerful and best-organised – Reading, Southampton and Plymouth for instance – usually had a break from local elections this year.

While Labour scored a respectable number of gains of councillors (291) since the 2009 drubbing, and took power in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, its share of the vote was a lot lower than in 2012 and some of the county-level and electoral division level results were disappointing. Adding up the votes in the key parliamentary constituencies (see Appendix for the necessary health warnings about this exercise) shows a similarly mixed pattern.

I shall break the Labour performances down into four loose groups: the best, the adequate, the disappointing and the Kippered.

Commentary

The best…

There are several very marginal constituencies where Labour opened up a large lead over the Conservatives, indicating that the political and organisational ground work has been put in and is paying dividends. Among these were the number one target from the Conservatives, North Warwickshire, where Labour did well in getting the core vote out in Bedworth as well as polling respectable voting numbers even in some quite Conservative commuter areas of the seat. Carlisle, Ipswich and Cannock Chase also posted double-digit swings since 2010, suggesting strong potential for 2015 Labour gains. Slightly smaller swings were enough to put Labour decisively ahead in other seats – Amber Valley, Lincoln, Hastings & Rye and Erewash. There were also a few seats further down the target list where large swings put Labour ahead in the votes cast in the county elections, such as North West Leicestershire and Gravesham, a tough target that was lost in 2005. Crawley, Redditch and Loughborough also came back to Labour (narrowly, with a high UKIP vote, in Redditch).

Perhaps the best performance of all was in the rather unlikely seat of Basingstoke, where a Conservative margin of 30 percentage points over (third placed) Labour in 2010 was slimmed down to only 4 points. As well as Basingstoke there were useful gains in some other non-target southern towns such as Banbury, St Albans and Salisbury.

The adequate…

A 5-point swing was about average, and what was indicated by the national equivalent vote share. This would equate to Labour being about three points ahead, on the cusp of being able to win a parliamentary majority if it applied uniformly.

Labour ‘won’ a number of seats where victory might be expected given such a swing, although sometimes with margins that were uncomfortably tight or a vote share eroded by UKIP or the Greens. Among these seats were Sherwood, Nuneaton and Lancaster & Fleetwood, but swings of this magnitude are not going to be enough to overcome larger Conservative majorities of the sort to be found in Stafford, South Derbyshire or Tamworth, all seats that Labour lost in 2010 and which were still Tory in 2013.

The disappointing…

There were a number of highly marginal seats which, on the 2013 local elections, would have stayed in the blue column. In many cases it is possible to find reasons and excuses. Several of them (Waveney, Morecambe & Lunesdale and Stroud) were difficult seats where popular Labour incumbents were narrowly defeated in 2010 and Labour’s local government candidates have not done as well (in Stroud David Drew polled 5,000 more votes than his local running mates even in 2001). In some, such as Gloucester (and Watford, where the Lib Dems were ahead) Labour habitually does worse in local elections than it does in national elections. Some others, such as Rugby and Bristol North West, saw Labour do poorly in 2013 without obvious explanation.

Looking at some of the seats Labour won in 1997 and 2001, there were some very disappointing outcomes in places such as Hemel Hempstead, Braintree and Witham where Labour did not regain any council seats after being wiped out in 2009, and weak recoveries in places like Kettering and Wellingborough.

… And the Kippered

In 2012 the UKIP vote probably helped Labour score some victories by dividing the right wing vote. But the UKIP vote in 2013 was larger and drew less exclusively from dissident Tories – it absorbed quite a lot of voters this time who were opposition-minded yet chose the populist right rather than the centre-left. In Great Yarmouth UKIP went from helping Labour win the borough council in 2012 to winning the most votes in the seat as a whole, particularly from white working class and lower middle class people who would also have been wooed by Labour. Great Yarmouth was one of about 8 or 9 constituencies where UKIP took the lead in votes in May 2013. Four of them (Aylesbury, Worthing East & Shoreham, North Thanet and Bognor Regis & Littlehampton) but the other four have been contested between Conservative and Labour. Labour came close in Boston & Skegness in 1997, and has recently won South Thanet, Forest of Dean, Camborne & Redruth and of course Great Yarmouth.

The UKIP vote seems to have put a dent in Labour’s potential strength, particularly in the east of England and in coastal towns and New Towns, places which are key to building an election winning coalition of support.

What about the Lib Dems?

For the Liberal Democrats, the county council results were disappointing and they probably lost ground in Somerset and Devon because they have previously been seen as standing up for their interests against remote, centralised power in London.

Labour’s score-card against the Lib Dems is respectable: Labour would gain Burnley and Norwich South easily, and Cambridge respectably, but fall slightly short in Bristol West. Among Labour seats with small majorities over Lib Dem, there was a huge swing to Labour in Chesterfield but a comparatively small one in Ashfield.

The Conservatives and Lib Dems, on the basis of the county results, would have traded a number of constituencies between them without any huge trend. The Tories would have won three of the four Lib Dem seats in Somerset, but – other than Wells – not by margins that should give them much confidence in a gain. The Lib Dems would probably – although the arithmetic is dubious – have lost out in west Cornwall and Lewes as well. UKIP ran them close in Eastleigh, building on their strong by-election vote. But it was roundabouts as well as swings – the Lib Dems were ahead in some seats that were Tory in 2010, such as South East Cornwall, Oxford West & Abingdon, Winchester, St Albans, Watford and Harborough. They were also holding most of their ‘free standing town’ type of seats such as Cheltenham, Colchester and Eastbourne.

Conclusion

Overall, the success of UKIP in some previously Conservative/ Labour two party towns, particularly on the east side of England in a band from Scarborough down to Dover, complicates the message of the 2013 elections considerably. Some Conservatives see UKIP voters as a pool of right wing, Eurosceptic votes, but only a part of the vote they achieved in the county elections and in opinion polls is of this nature. Many of them, as Labour thinkers such as John Denham have noted, are profoundly dissatisfied with the way the coalition is leading Britain but have not been persuaded by Labour’s alternative yet.

Even leaving aside the UKIP factor, the results in 2013 were not as good as they might have been for Labour. In places where a direct comparison with the 2012 local elections is possible the Labour vote often fell slightly more than the Conservative vote, producing a technical swing to the Tories since last year. This was apparent in places such as Harlow and Redditch where there were strong UKIP votes, and also in Hastings and Nuneaton & Bedworth where there were not. The turnout in these county elections, languishing in the low-30s in many of these traditionally high turnout areas, as well as the results, show that these elections were not a vote of confidence in any party.

When we get a bank holiday many of us try and cram as many of these moments in as possible. A mad, scrabbling dash to live as much as possible in that extra day. As the sun went down on the first bank holiday of this month, the South Bank was peppered with the like. As the breezy, balmy hours drew to a close, people padded along the paves running along the Thames as it lapped at the pebbles. The walkways were awash with warm summer skin freckling and bodies hanging across railings with hands clasped around cups and cones.

The gentle whir of London continued, but at a different pace. The thick, warm air full of laughter and the natter of old friends catching up. Full of people spending time together – all sorts of people, lots of time.

As Marc Stears so elegantly put it in Everyday Democracy, “One of the last acts of Clement Attlee’s reforming Labour government was to transform an industrial wasteland in the heart of the city into a vast park for public entertainment as the centre of a Festival of Britain. Attlee’s Festival site was not just a super-charged fairground. It was the manifestation of an idea. The Festival was intended to present Britain as it should be. It was a practical example of what a free, orderly, generous, compassionate, and, most of all, democratic Britain would look and feel like.”

The way that people feel about the South Bank endures. It endures because it feels like it belongs to everyone. It endures because it feels like a free and peaceful place. It endures because the people who walk among it are the thing that make it feel special.

It’s a place where people really mix, and there aren’t all that many of them aside from the odd park and train. And if, like Stears suggests, we should be working towards a world and a society with more places to encounter one another, to find relationships that challenge us, then this is one such place to do so. It offers that most important of things – space where you can afford to enjoy being around people and being around culture. We need these spaces, to find and tie us to each other and to the communities around us.

Rising up out of the gentle stream of people bobbing along the bank, sits a tiny boat overlooking Queen Elizabeth Hall, perched atop a strip that flashes “Power to the people. Power to the people. Power to the people.” Just underneath, this bank holiday weekend past, was a small wooden table plastered with banners and sheets of petition paper, ready to tell anyone that would listen about the plans to redevelop this precious space.

“The history of the site always made me so excited, and still does.” says Southbank Centre art director Jude Kelly, fondly. “The Royal Festival Hall was created in 1971, after the second world war, when people were really thinking ‘How do we make the world better?’ And one of the ways to do that was to create a site that was dedicated to the idea of the people’s imagination”. While others involved in the redevelopment talk of the “festival philosophy” – which, they say, will be used to turn the current clutch of buildings and “relic of a great idea” into a new vision –  many fear it will be surrounded by a wall of commercial outlets and more chain restaurants.

One of the most interesting and vibrant pockets on the South Bank is the skating undercroft, beneath Queen Elizabeth Hall. The current plans for the ‘Festival wing’ mean that this site would be redeveloped and the skating community relocated under Hungerford bridge. With the undercroft space key to securing the commercial backing needed for the project, the offer to the skating community is compromise rather than a stake, leaving them, in large part, understandably up in arms.

Long Live Southbank campaign spokesman Henry Edwards-Wood tries to put into words the history of the current skating space, when talking to Huck magazine, adding:  “When there was no graffiti here it was magical, because it wasn’t about being next to all this art, it was about interpreting this amazing space that wasn’t designed for us and doing something different with it”. And you can see that differences, that merging of cultures – and the important and interesting questions is throws up: What is art? What is ‘urban art’? Is some art/culture more important than others?

There’s beauty in those differences and that is what the South Bank is about. The importance of this space for this community – the community that turn up day-in day-out, weather not permitting and use that space to find like minds and hone their skill. It means something because it is there – there for people to go to and for people to find – to create history and memories. Edwards-Wood touches on this too: “Public spaces in the city are going, y’know. And it’s not just about skate boarding it’s…places you can just walk around and be free and think about stuff and just be yourself, rather than being ‘go here, buy this, do that, conform’…there’s not many places like that left, so if this goes it’s going to be a sad day for the arts culture in England, not just for the skateboarders.”

Niall Neeson, founder of Kingpin magazine, has written recently that many, including him, are willing to see this redevelopment as an opportunity for the skating community, that keeps “the essence intact”. A chance for change, for renovation, for fresh starts and for new adventures. It’s with a sigh, it seems, that he gives into the fact that it basically comes down to money, whether it’s a high-level skate sponsor that steps in or the plan goes forward. But he talks of the history, of the reasons to fight and the reasons to win by not winning this time. “It is an article of faith in skating that despite our differences we all get into line in battles against the outside world”.

And there is a battle here, to retain something that’s important to so many, in a place where that always felt more valued. Neeson continues: “Nobody in authority really cares that much about ‘legitimacy’ or historical resonance of contemporary sub-cultures. That is because we don’t vote, basically. Hospitals and libraries are closing every day; convincing the outside world that it’s not up for negotiation – doesn’t seem to me enough to cut it today, I’m afraid.”

The skating community has now drawn a new line in the sand in this particular battle – using legislation designed for traditional means to stick up for their little slice of London and the historic resonance they feel the site has. An application to protect the space has been lodged Lambeth Council, using the Commons Act 2006, invoking laws usually used to protect village greens. If the spirit of the village green, a common space for all to spend time on hobbies and with each other, is alive and well anywhere today, it’s got to be the South Bank.

And here is where Stears’ Everyday Democracy takes hold, once more. Here’s the nub of it. Whether you think the South Bank is important and critical for the skating community or not, whether you think your local hospital is a key facility in your community or you want to support moves to redirect funding into local community care, whether you think everyone should be able to walk into a library in their part of the world and read a book for free – whatever you think about how you use these things, you have to make it known and talk to the community about it.  We are people who use and care about these things, these spaces, these facilities. It’s time to use the power we have as a force, to be heard and talk to each other, to challenge each other, to forge the world the way we want and fight for our own little slice of wherever. “The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it” said Aneurin Bevan, knowing full well the power of our people.

But that’s the missing piece. The missing piece that Stears was talking about. And may very well be the thing on Ed Miliband’s mind as he clambers onto palettes up and down the high streets of Britain. It’s the missing piece to tie us together, for real, again – that democracy isn’t just in the voting booth. Democracy is out on the street and among the high rises if we look up and don’t like what we see. It’s scattered along the South Bank, between the old books and the strumming. It’s in what we want to fight for and how we work together to do so. It’s not in smashing or grabbing, it’s in talking, working and pushing ourselves forward.

“Our spirit of mutual responsibility is undermined by the transactional mindset…”, says Stears. And you can feel GDH Cole tugging at mutuality with dreams of self-governing as he looks out across the South Bank, Georg Simmel glancing at the chain restaurants and noting down how many more people exchange money than smile at one and other and the fleeting moments of the modernity that Zygmunt Bauman sees spraying out before us. The trouble with being human nowadays, Bauman suggests, is that we no longer give ourselves the time to be. And it’s easy to fall into that habit and relationships become something else. We become isolated and turn away from one and other.

Everyone has lost faith in politics, so they say. We’re told that we’re all so disengaged from and disinterested in politics. But are we really? There are voices speaking up and the change being realised in communities throughout the country through sheer will and collaboration. It’s not Westminster politics, it’s not anti-politics and it might not be neat poll-worthy politics or your definition of politics. But if we feel disconnected from the hands we put power in to, then the only thing to do is find hope in our own kind of politics. In the Name of Greatness, a short film by Dorothy Allen-Pickard, picks out that the spark of community in the grind of a day. “We can avoid another riot, if what we’re trying to build are real ties, to each other and to the present” spits Nicki Williams from her rainy backdrop. “To feel a sense of responsibility. To sympathise and empathise and criticise and recognise…a place. Where we want to spent our lives.”

We have to sit across a table from one and other and work out a way forward that works for as many of us as possible, and that keeps the magic in the places that we love. Because that’s everyday democracy of the sort that will help us piece together not a broken Britain, but one that has become divided and tough – a democracy where we can build and work and fight together for places and spaces and power. So we can carry on sitting with the sun on our faces next to a kid mesmerised by the waves on the Thames, as a young girl sits on a brick wall and sings towards a lady who covers her heart and says: “Aren’t you wonderful…..Eh, Graham! Can’t that lass sing. Isn’t she amazing.” And we all go home with more freckles and more smiles and more hope in each other.

If we want our voices heard we’ve got to sing. And maybe, like Kingpin’s Neeson says: “It never rains to suit everyone”, but surely by working together we can make sure that, at the very least, everyone has an umbrella.

Wouldn’t that be nice. Wouldn’t that be nicer.

You can find out more about how to support the Long Live Southbank campaign here.

Photo: Alexandra Mitchell

Less well known was Labour’s revolution in workplace pension saving. But this legacy will be of crucial importance to the next Labour government: nowhere does Ed Miliband’s call for ‘responsible capitalism’, where a fairer, more productive economy reduces the public cost of failing markets, resonate more strongly than in the world of workplace pensions. Pension saving should deliver two things. First, a reasonable income in retirement for savers on a cost-effective basis. Second, savings should be invested in a way that develops the long-term capacity of the productive economy. The current British workplace pension system is flawed in both respects.

The next Labour government will inherit an economic mess of George Osborne’s making. Money will be tight; living standards squeezed. Every penny will count. The coalition is intent on a simpler but, for many, less generous state pension. The government assumes that the new workplace occupational pensions for all – ‘auto-enrolment’ – introduced by Labour will take up the slack. But the market in private pensions does not always deliver value for money. This is due to three main problems. First, the costs of pensions are hidden and can be high, allowing financial intermediaries to absorb the savings that should be creating retirement incomes. Second, there is a conflict of interest in contract-based pension schemes between delivering for savers and meeting shareholders’ interests. Third, many pension schemes operate at an inadequate scale, generating extra costs and unable to support trustees who could act in the savers’ interest.

It does not have to be this way. The workplace occupational pensions in which most Britons will save in the future can be reformed to deliver value for money. This would help the ’squeezed middle’ – both directly and indirectly. Directly, because there are a set of reforms which would lower the costs of saving into a pension, ensuring people a higher income in retirement. Indirectly, because these same reforms would also lead pension providers to favour long-term, patient approaches to investment rather than a short-term casino one. As numerous commentators have observed, one of the keys to generating and sustaining higher growth in the UK is the fostering of a long-term approach amongst British businesses.

Ed Miliband has emphasised the importance of reforming markets to end consumer rip-offs. To do this, in a new Fabian pamphlet, we argue that all pension providers must acquire scale, reform their governance and lower costs to savers. This will personally benefit savers in terms of lower charges but the consequences are much broader for the economy. Michael Heseltine’s report for the government on industrial policy emphasised that for a growth strategy to succeed, all departments – not just the ‘economic’ ones – need to act to stimulate growth. In this context, he specifically noted that UK pension funds are generally too small to cope with providing investment for infrastructure projects. Indeed pensions in the UK are a cottage industry in need of the efficiency and expertise that scaling up has produced in other countries.

Pension credit represents a huge redistribution of resources to the poorest pensioners in our country, while the stakeholder pensions Labour introduced began the necessary reform of workplace pensions. But auto-enrolment, legislated for by the last Labour government, is potentially the most radical reform of all. The 10 million employees in the UK not saving into a workplace pension are being enrolled automatically by their employer. This cardinal fact changes the politics of pensions. An industry capable of serving these millions of new low and middle income pension savers becomes a political imperative.

It’s true that lots of young people don’t vote, but those who do lean heavily towards Labour and the polls suggest that close to one third of under-25s will back the party at the next election. With 3.8 million people coming of age between 2010 and 2015 that translates into more than one million Labour votes – or around one in 10 of the total the party needs to win. By contrast, on today’s polls the Conservatives can expect the backing of around 600,000 or 700,000 first-time voters, giving Labour a net gain of 400,000 supporters.

At the other end of the age spectrum, each party will lose voters as people come to the end of their lives. More older people vote Tory than Labour, however, so this effect has a larger impact for the right. Between 2010 and 2015 a projected 2.7 million deaths will lead to a net loss for the Tories compared to Labour of around 100,000 supporters.

So this demographic churn gives Labour a potential advantage of 500,000 votes, compared to 2010, assuming that what people are telling the polls actually comes to pass. Now that we’re half way through the parliament, about half of the effect from demographic churn is ‘priced in’ to the polls and it probably accounts for about one percentage point of the gain Labour had made since 2010. In a tight finish that could make all the difference. But with young people the numbers in opinion polls certainly can’t be taken for granted. Labour will need to tell an optimistic, motivating story to first-time voters and pour huge resources into registering, identifying and mobilising potentially sympathetic young people.

This is not a call for pitting generations against each other, however. A slightly smaller share of older people vote Labour compared to under-25s, but there are vastly more of them out there. The party will probably never lead on the grey vote: as a generation, older people are deeply committed to a social democratic welfare state, but for many this is trumped by cultural and economic conservatism. However, to win in 2015, Labour must still earn something like 3.5 million votes from people aged over-60. The party particularly needs to provide a good reason for older Liberal Democrat supporters to come over to Labour as well as ensuring it hangs on to the support of people who have voted Labour during their working lives as they reach retirement. As Harriet Harman has said many times, the views of older women are particularly important here.

The polls suggest that, so far, Labour is doing enough when it comes to older age groups, but there’s only so much you can read from mid-term polls. Labour needs a message of reassurance and competence, particularly for older people, as well as signalling it offers an optimistic future and genuine alternative for first time voters.

Update:

Since I wrote the article I’ve been worrying that the polls don’t fully reflect the differential in turn-out between young and old (even though young people tell pollsters they ‘don’t know’ or ‘won’t vote’ a lot). So I’ve done the calculations again using the actual turn-out data for 2010. On this basis:

• First time voters: Labour will acquire around 800,000 new voters and the Tories 600,000, so a net gain for Labour of around 200,000 votes
• Deaths: Labour will lose a little over 500,000 voters and the Tories a little less than 700,000, resulting in a net gain to Labour of 170,000 votes
• Total: Ignoring the possibility that Labour might be able to increase turnout among the young, the total effect is a net gain for Labour of 370,000 votes by 2015 which is likely to equate to a swing of a bit over one per cent.

The last general election was won by no political party and so now we have a coalition of Tories and Liberal Democrats who say they have come together for the ’common good’, which they are using as an excuse to bring in ideologically-motivated changes that no-one voted for. ’But,’ they say, ’it’s in the coalition agreement.’ This does nothing to rebuild the trust lost between politicians and voters.

There have, however, been a couple of changes in parliament, which may at first sight seem technical, but have had a big impact on how accessible we have become to the people who have elected us. We exist, after all, in a heavily representative system where people get a say once every five years, now that we have fixed-term parliaments; there is no obligation on us to ask for their opinions in between.

First of all, the backbench business committee was created. This is a group of backbench MPs elected by their peers to decide on how 35 days of every parliamentary year should be used. I am the committee’s first chair and we decided early on that we would be responsive only to matters brought to us by backbenchers rather than choose them ourselves. As a result we have scheduled debates on various issues, including: holding an EU referendum, banning wild animals in circuses, providing compensation for victims of contaminated blood and calling for action on loan sharks and pay-day loan companies. In short, issues that are raised in pubs, clubs and surgeries around the country, but which governments and oppositions tend to give a wide berth.

In one blow, parliament has become more responsive and is raising issues that the people we represent care about.

As well as this, we now have an e-petition system. It is imperfect at the moment, raising expectations which often cannot be met, but it is a step in the right direction. Any e-petition that reaches the 100,000-signature threshold is brought before the backbench business committee and all have, so far, gained a hearing in parliament. These have included recent debates on fuel and beer duty and stopping the badger cull. In each of these debates the viewing figures on the parliament channel have been unprecedented because finally we are discussing things that people care about.

This really matters. For too long we have been giving people a phoney choice between three political parties who all want to occupy the political centre ground. It makes us all look the same, on issues which aren’t major concerns for people, anyway. But as soon as it comes to an issue on which the public would like their say, like a referendum on the EU, there is silence in the manifestos of the political parties. It is an issue that is too problematic for parties to deal with, so they don’t, but it leaves an electorate feeling that politicians can’t be trusted.

At the same time, people often say that they wish politicians would stop arguing amongst themselves and get round a table to do what is best for the country. This would make things even worse: politicians deciding amongst themselves what is best for everyone without even giving people a choice. That is exactly what has led to the political disenchantment which, in turn, has led to the low turnouts we are seeing today.

The answer is more politics, not less. More ideology, not shying away from it. Big ideas rather than tinkering changes. But most of all, giving people a genuine choice, something to argue for or against, and politicians who can defend their points of view. If we achieve that, we will see turnouts rise and politics matter again, because how much you pay for petrol and beer matters. And that’s a matter of politics.

 This article originally appeared in the winter 2012 Fabian Review

Board

‘The intelligence of an organisation is never equal to the sum of the intelligence of the people who work in it.’ Stephen Bungay, The Art of Action

As Francis points out the primary responsibility for overseeing standards of medical care lie with the board – that is ensuring front line staff provide high quality and safe care. Locally where it matters, boards not regulators hold the ring. The evidence gathered in the report pointed to a board that failed to address concerns – that did not listen to staff or patients, nor react to worrying data. They were isolated from day to day realities, with no functioning governance system and focused on the wrong things – finance, targets and self promotion. It was a board that had lost its way.

Recommendation 224 to 272 (information) relating to accurate, useful, relevant information that supports a more open and transparent system and recommendations 109 to 122 (complaints) including publication of complaints and the response on hospital websites, may have helped identify failings sooner. Francis calls for board level accountability, clear metrics on quality and investment in systems that can act as important warning signals.

We know that for data to be effective it must be meaningful, comparable, real time, open and transparent. Sir Bruce Keogh (medical director of the NHS commissioning board) has demonstrated very clearly how clinical data can improve surgical outcomes when the data is universally used and shared openly. Data should be focused and reinforced at every level so that we talk consistently about the same things because we care about them. The clinical context and the quality of care is what really motivates healthcare professionals – they want to know what they are doing and whether they are doing it well. A two way process should be adopted – ensuring on the front line that data capture is easy, meaningful and in turn is reviewed at every layer of the organisation including the board. System wide comparisons, publicly available, should be used to guide action by the board or if need be, by the regulator.

Francis states that the board’s failure, including the mismatch between resources allocated and need happened because of the system. Whilst this is true, it misses the point in that the board was the first line of defence, and if functioning properly it would have been able to ask the right questions and address these failings. Opportunities were missed.

Time, energy and resources should be devoted to increase board capability, resilience, decision-making and execution of priorities. This includes investing and developing those in executive and non-executive positions.

It is instructive that only 2 per cent of the recommendations relate to the board itself

(recommendation 37 – quality accounts, recommendation 79 – provider directors and recommendations 139 to144 – performance management and strategic oversight). In contrast, there are a host of detailed instructions relating to the processes that should be adopted by the board including complaints handling (recommendation 109 -122), healthcare standards (recommendations 19 – 59) and commissioning standards (recommendation 123 -130). This highlights the disconnect between the failings identified and the recommendations made.

Health operates in an unpredictable environment; there are often gaps between plans, actions and outcomes. These gaps are too often due to lack of knowledge, poor planning and alignment, ineffective communication and uncertainty of the effects of action. As Stephan Bungay states in the Art of Action: “Faced with a lack of knowledge, it seems logical to seek more detailed information, faced with a problem of alignment, it feels natural to issue more detailed instructions and faced with disappointment in the effects being achieved, it is quite understandable to impose more detailed controls. Unfortunately, these reactions do not solve the problem, they make it worse.”

Francis seems to be doing just that – issuing more instructions, tighter controls and gathering of more information – creating another vast set of boxes to be ticked whilst the point is missed. Any effective board should be doing most of what Francis recommends. One way or another, a bureaucratic and prescriptive response could simply make the situation worse. Whilst we should seek to improve knowledge and alignment, and simplify regulation, a different and more courageous approach is needed which focuses on doing more with the knowledge gathered, with the explicit aim of placing people and patients at its core; an approach which seeks to direct people rather than control.In so doing, boards should decide what really counts – making tough decisions on what they should be doing; getting the message across in a clear and straightforward manner to staff and patients that quality comes first, explaining their plan for service improvement, and why these intentions have been reached.

After setting a clear strategic vision, boards need to give people the space and support to take decisions for themselves within acceptable boundaries. If these boundaries are crossed then boards need to take decisive action, again reaffirming the values of the organisation – each time a line is crossed the depth of poor quality deepens. Staff and patients need to understand that the board is willing to accept nothing less than high quality and safe care.

Of course, this approach will only be successful if adopted in conjunction with changes to selection, education and training, and the cultivation of a prevailing culture that demands a meritocratic system which values independent thinking and initiative. The people in the system need to share basic values. This process is often called ‘mission command’ in the military or ‘directed opportunism’ in business. It offers a more sustainable and adaptable model for the NHS than the cyclical lurches from command and control to laissez-faire which have characterised the approach to the NHS since 1948. It needs to be encouraged, supported and become the norm across the system – Francis touches upon some of these elements but does not reinforce this message at its core. It is a missed opportunity.

Regulation

He who seeks to regulate everything by law is more likely to arouse vices than to reform them.’ Barouck Spinoz

Organisations that operate in a system need boundaries and they need to know where they stand. Regulatory standards and legal parameters are necessary.

Francis recognised that with differing regulators, focusing on different aspects of the system there is a danger of confusion and misinterpretation. Boundaries were not clear, with over-complexity hampering efforts to deliver services. Recommendation 19 is significant in that it proposes a single regulator dealing with “corporate governance, viability and compliance with patient safety and quality standards for all trusts”. This is welcome – clarity restored.

Francis proposes that the care quality commission (CQC) should take over this role with Monitor ‘regulating the health economy’. He stops short in calling for a new entity, sighting further reconfiguration as unnecessary and adding to disruption – a sentiment echoed by the CQC’s chair David Prior. Both the CQC and Monitor believe that effective regulation can be achieved through greater cooperation between the organisations, not a single or new regulator. Confusion remains.

Elsewhere on BBC’s online coverage, a blog was published by their chief political correspondent, Nick Robinson, where he told his readers: “It is the day UKIP emerged as a real political force in the land”, and “This is a more profound change than you might think.” (Robinson later backtracked on these claims and added a note at the bottom of his original article where he stated “They [UKIP] are not about to challenge for power.”)

However, by the start of the weekend of 4 May, the narrative seemed set in stone – the story of the election was UKIP’s 23 per cent “national breakthrough” and commentators from across the spectrum began relentlessly analysing the potential shifts in the political paradigm for both left and right. Yet, something didn’t seem right. The BBC’s online figures contained little raw data regarding real, on-the-ground voting numbers and vote shares as percentages. Furthermore the BBC’s coverage repeated a key phrase – “if we look at UKIP’s vote share in the seats that they stood in” – as a benchmark from which to extrapolate UKIP’s exceptional national breakthrough.

By Saturday morning 14 of the various areas and councils where the elections had taken place published their actual voting numbers and vote shares. These included parts of the country where UKIP had had their strongest showing such as Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Hampshire. Over on my blog, Moment of Crisis, I published those figures, made some preliminary calculations and arrived at a figure of 18.52 per cent as the UKIP vote share based on those areas only.

How then had the BBC arrived at 23 per cent projected national vote share for UKIP when it appeared that their vote share was only marginally up on their best performance in the 2009 European election of 16.5 per cent – and this in the English shires where they were supposed to be at their strongest? How could UKIP’s vote be considered national when 10 of the 34 councils voting hadn’t returned any UKIP councillors at all and in Bristol, the only urban area involved in last Thursday’s elections, they only polled 4.16 per cent? And when you factored in UKIP’s very poor showing in the 2011 and 2012 council elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where they managed a combined total of only two councillors across all three countries, the idea of a national trend suddenly becomes reduced to the regions of southern and eastern England.

In the days since then I’ve dug further into what kind of numbers UKIP would need to reach a 23 per cent predicted national vote share (PNVS) and speculated on what kind of vote UKIP might get in a general election. The results are surprising and undermine the dominant and favoured narrative on UKIP that is now being widely circulated.

If we assume there will be a 66 per cent voter turn out at the next general election that will give us 31.5 million voters from 47.5 million of the entire electorate. Therefore to secure a PNVS of 23 per cent of 31.5 million UKIP would need a grand total of 7.25 million votes across the entire country.

Of that 31.5 million, roughly 5 million will be from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with the remaining 26.5 million from England. Of that 26.5 million in England roughly 8 million would be from the major urban areas such London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield etc. This leaves 18.5 million voters in the shires, towns and small to medium urban centres.

Given that in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland UKIP don’t really have any base whatsoever. In the 2012 Scottish council elections UKIP secured 0.28 per cent of first preference votes whilst in the 2012 Welsh council elections they secured two council seats in the entire country and in Northern Ireland’s 2011 council elections they managed 0.4 per cent vote share. It’s therefore safe to say that it would be miraculous if UKIP polled 5 per cent across these three constituent parts of the UK.

But, just for arguments’ sake, let’s be extra generous and give UKIP 7.5 per cent or 375,000 general election votes from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Now we can factor in a projected result from the 8 million major English urban areas. If we take UKIP’s Bristol showing (4.16 per cent) and their Greater London Assembly vote (4.5 per cent), you would need to more than double it to give UKIP a uniform 12.5 per cent across all the major urban centres that would equal 1 million votes.

These very generous projected vote shares give us a grand combined total of 1,375,000 votes from the major urban centres, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These numbers would also mean that from the remaining 18.5 million votes UKIP would need to secure 5,875,000 votes or a uniform 31.75 per cent vote share across the board in the English shires, towns and small to medium urban centres in order to attain the 23 per cent projected national vote share. Given that UKIP, even during the Eastleigh by-election only managed 27.8 per cent, the notion that they could sustain 31.75 per cent across most of England seems implausible to say the very least. Bring those shares in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the cities down to a more realistic 5 per cent (250,000) and 7.5 per cent (600,000) respectively and UKIP would need to secure 6.4 million or 34.6 per cent of the remaining English vote to reach a 23 per cent share.

If you then reverse the equation and take a generous UKIP share of 23 per cent or 4,255,000 of 18.5 million voters in the shires, towns, small and medium urban centres plus 12.5 per cent or 1 million voters from the major cities UKIP would then need 2 million or 40 per cent of the vote in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to take it up to the 7.25 million for a PNVS of 23 per cent. Once again, the numbers just don’t add up and so the BBC’s 23 per cent  figure must be greeted not only with scepticism but cynicism.

So, what would a more realistic UKIP vote share look like? If we agree that UKIP’s actual vote share was 20 per cent last week – still a very decent number – and extrapolated that across the 18.5 million voters in the shires, towns, small and medium urban centres we’d get 3.7 million votes. Add in a more realistic 2.5 per cent, or 125,000 votes, from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and 7.5 per cent, or 600,000 votes, from the large cities and you’d get a combined national total of UKIP 4,425,000 votes.

As a share of 31.5 million, and based on relatively generous numbers, 4,425,000 is 14.04 per cent, far below the 23 per cent projected national vote share concocted by the BBC. In fact, I would instinctively go further and state that due to differing voting patterns and a lack of adequate candidates UKIP would, at their very best, likely only just make 10 per cent as PNVS in a general election.

At this stage these numbers represent preliminary investigations but they do assert a challenge to the emerging discourse on UKIP. They also underline questions regarding the BBC’s 23 per cent as UKIP’s PNVS and lead this writer to believe the BBC’s number was spurious hyperbole. My view is that the BBC went with the largest polling number they could find in order to shore up their own sensationalist narrative of the “UKIP breakthrough” story. Furthermore what is missing from the BBC’s coverage is an explanation of how they reached 23 per cent as their PNVS. It would certainly be interesting to take a close look at the methodology behind it – it would certainly be interesting to see how could reach a 23 per cent PNVS figure.

So, what does this all mean for the Labour party? The first thing to point out is that to all intents and purposes UKIP are, in fact, just Tories by another name. Labour should be standing aloof, statesperson-like, as they watch Farage, Cameron et al tear each other to pieces, shaking their heads disapprovingly and putting a positive message on getting the economy moving, jobs and homes.

Of course, for some, one reaction to UKIP would be for Labour to tack towards UKIP’s position in order to hold onto any possibly of switching voters. Caution should be urged regarding this strategy as it would likely have few benefits as the small number of UKIP voters who’d switch to Labour would almost certainly be offset by those Labour supporters who would find any rightward turn unpalatable and stay at home.

Does this mean that UKIP and its voters can be ignored or dismissed as cranks? No, of course not. But when most people talk of fear of immigration what they are really talking of is a fear that they won’t get their share of scarcer resources. For me, Labour need to address the fears of UKIP voters and not pander to them. To do that Labour needs to create positive policy-led solutions to the problems at the root of those fears, not least through creating affordable housing, decent, secure jobs and a sense of community engagement with the political process. Just wearing UKIP’s clothes reveals a lack of purpose, ideas and courage. It’s also unlikely to win Labour few, if any, extra votes.