Part-time Parliament a loopy idea

This week Jack Straw proposed abolition of the European Parliament. Richard Howitt MEP, Chair of the European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP) and speaker at this weekend's 'Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?' conference gives his response.

Oh Jack. You are and have been a great servant of the party and I have always forgiven that the European Union isn't your favourite dish. But you only needed to ask some of the politicians in your own generation to know that returning to a European Assembly of national politicians replacing the directly elected Parliament would be completely loopy.

It was tried in the 1970s and the logistics of MPs undertaking their parliamentary duties at home, travelling and trying to engage in joint work with counterparts from eight other countries proved unworkable. It was why direct elections were first agreed for 1979.

The politicians of that era I have talked to, speak with affection about the bars and nightspots of Strasbourg, but not of any political achievements in going there.

And that was before the European Parliament had full legislative powers, now incorporating 27 countries, and meeting 44 weeks a year, (far more than Westminster). Unlike the Commons division lobby, the European Parliament votes on 800 policy proposals and 10,000 amendments in each parliamentary year.

If the aim is to build trust in European institutions, a part-time Parliament is the last thing we need.

Indeed the impact of abolishing Europe's directly-elected Parliament would be to reduce scrutiny of legislation and of EU spending, lessen visibility and remove the very people the Eurosceptic press can never justifiably brand as "Eurocrats." In British public opinion, it would have the very opposite impact to the one you propose.

Parliamentary democracy is a fine and noble thing. It builds public support by bringing political debate and decision-making in to the open, and by giving citizens the chance to be the ultimate decision-makers through the electoral process. This is the case throughout the world and has to apply to Europe.

But there is a narrow Labour Party point to all this too.

Labour Euro MPs constantly strive to serve our constituents effectively and we must always be prepared to be self-critical on how we can do better.

But Labour in Government - the government in which you proudly served - too often failed to put the case for Europe, and fell in to the trap of claiming credit for European achievements for itself and blaming Europe for the things that go wrong.

But the days of the party treating its MEPs as the embarrassing aunt are long-gone.

The new generation of Labour politicians from Ed Miliband to Douglas Alexander, Emma Reynolds to our own leader Glenis Willmott, all appreciate that Labour has to do better on Europe as on other issues than limiting solutions to those from within the Westminster bubble.

Jack, it was a privilege to serve in your team as Labour's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson in Europe, when you were an outstanding Foreign Secretary.

But I recognise that perhaps one job that is beyond me is to be able to change your own views on Europe.

Richard Howitt MEP is Chair of the European Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour Member of the European Parliament for the East of England.

E-mail: richard@richardhowittmep.com Twitter: @richardhowitt

Millande? Hollaband? Why Labour must get off the sidelines on Europe

Fabian Society General Secretary Andrew Harrop writes for Next Left ahead of this weekend's Social Europe: Worth Fighting For? conference

With the European right rallying behind Nicolas Sarkozy for the upcoming French presidential election, Ed Miliband must now move Labour away from the sidelines and offer similar support for socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

As politicians on the European right, buoyed by a period of centre-right ascendancy across the EU, have been campaigning together to secure austerity Europe, the left has, in contrast, been fragmented. As a consequence the burden has fallen on the grassroots to emerge as the sole vehicle to oppose the right’s vision of enforced austerity. Instead of the centre-left political parties articulating an effective opposition across Europe, it is in the indignados of Madrid, the Occupy movements and the anti-cuts protests in Brussels, London, Rome and Athens, rather than parliaments where the real opposition has emerged.

This is no more obvious than here in the UK where the Labour party has seemingly adopted a position of pragmatic Eurosceptism. Ed Miliband seems to be content to look on as the Tory right tear chunks out of David Cameron, while judging the issue far too toxic to actually make a serious comment on.

This is simply not good enough. With the centre-right coalescing around a shared vision of austerity, Ed Miliband must put himself at the forefront of an 'alternative to austerity', allying with leaders like Hollande who are willing to espouse the same policy. To succeed this must incorporate an economic message – propounding the need for investment in jobs and growth not just budget cuts – but also champion European policies defending strong social rights and welfare.

The Fabian Society’s Social Europe conference this weekend will focus on these rights which the centre-right consensus in Europe has identified clearly as an obstacle to the small-government, fiscal discipline answer to the financial crisis. In Greece, the enforced budgetary cutbacks have targeted the minimum wage, working time regulations and the pushed for the introduction of a more ‘flexible’ job market. In France, Sarkozy has talked about the need to relax the 35-hour week and to pay for removing social charges on businesses paid for by an increase in that least-progressive of taxes, VAT. In the UK, right-wing Tories like Liam Fox talk about relaxing constraints on business, a message woven closely together with the endless Conservative diatribes about Brussels red tape.

This race to the bottom will help no-one in the long run. There is growing evidence from the UK and abroad that government spending cuts are fundamentally harming growth, producing fractional growth figures for successive quarters. Nor is there any substantive evidence showing that cutting back on employees’ rights and making it easier to hire and fire, produces genuine growth in jobs. Both Ed Miliband and Francois Hollande have spoken convincingly about the need for a more responsible capitalism, this message must be a key part of this.

These are problems that are taking place on the European scale and merit a response from a united left in Europe. It is simply not credible for Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to propose their economic alternative in the UK, while ignoring the wider European context. Sooner or later, they will have to get off the fence.

There are still a handful of tickets available for 'Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?' - to get yours please visit the Fabian Society website 

Social Europe: Worth fighting for - The Results

Ahead of our ‘Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?’ conference on 25th February the Fabian Society conducted a membership survey on the EU to find out if the views of our traditionally pro-European membership have shifted.

The results, in many ways, were as expected. Our membership remains overwhelmingly pro-European but, in tune with the country at large, our members are also starting to move further towards the Eurosceptic side of the argument. This is especially the case when questions about widening the UK’s involvement with the project and of democratic accountability are asked. This is underlined by eight out of ten Fabian members believing the EU lacks democratic integrity and only one in five being able to name all their MEPs.

First the good news for our pro-Europeans, a North Korean-esque 94 percent believes that the UK should not only remain part of the EU, but that we as a people benefit from continued membership. EU-led changes such as relaxed border controls, free trade and even the single currency were all cited as reasons for optimism about what the project has accomplished.

When asked about which policy areas should see deeper integration with our EU partners the picture becomes more mixed. There is clear support for deepening our ties when it comes to tackling climate change (78 percent), employment rights (70 percent) – surely a victory for Trade Union campaigning there - and security and defence (64 percent).

The most important issues for Europe to cooperate on

There was less enthusiasm, but still a majority, for home affairs. A signal that, while Fabians see the benefits in areas where we are already integrated, increasing numbers are wary of deepening ties. 53 percent wanted more integration on issues like social affairs such as health and 54 percent on crime and justice, a 20 point gap from our top rated issues.

The real Achilles heel for the European project continues to be what anti-EU campaigners call the ‘democratic deficit’ in its institutions. When asked if it was thought voters had enough power over the EU an astounding 78 percent said no. As if to underline this point we asked how many of our members knew who all their MEPs were and only a paltry 22 percent could name them all (56 percent said some and 22 percent said none).

Given that Fabian members are both very engaged politically and overwhelmingly pro-European these are shocking numbers and questions about Brussels democratic element have to be seriously asked.

Do you know who your MEPs are?

Our MEPs lack of cut through isn’t a new phenomenon and there are questions for all of us who work in politics. A quick straw poll of the Fabian office revealed just one staff member who could name all his MEPs (a far lower percentage, it has to be said, than Fabian members managed), and he previously worked for an MEP.

Without a recognisable public face the charge of ‘faceless Brussels bureaucrat’ becomes impossible to refute, and easy shorthand for any anti-EU campaigner looking to score cheap points in a debate. The EU can’t dissolve the electorate and elect a new one so it needs to look at itself and work out the fairest (and most engaging) ways of making decisions in future. Without it even our Fabian pro-Europeans will continue their drift towards Euroscepticism.

You can view the full survey results here

There are still a few tickets available for "Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?" on Saturday 25th February. Visit the Fabian Society website to get yours today.

Olly Parker is head of Partnerships and Events at the Fabian Society

Why we need Social Europe

Ahead of the Fabian Society's Social Europe conference on 25th February, Ivana Bartoletti, Editor of Fabiana and former policy advisor to Romano Prodi government in Italy, writes for Next Left on why a social agenda must be at the heart for Europe  

European social policy comprises a variety of interventions, which take place mainly through the so-called Open Method of Coordination. The outcome is an amalgam of legislation, financial aid, cooperation and soft law mechanisms such as guidelines, benchmarking, and best practice.

In recent years, soft law mechanisms have become the preferred route to promote innovation in social policy. They are embedded in the Lisbon Strategy, which was adopted in 2000 with the aim of turning Europe into a socially inclusive and competitive, knowledge-based economy by 2010.

However, in the past ten years the idea underpinning the Lisbon Strategy — that economic and social goals must be closely connected — has been slowly abandoned. By 2005, the focus of the Strategy had shifted from considering social policy as a key factor for growth, to simply ‘growth and jobs’, without any mention of it. This didn’t happen by chance, but has been the result of the swing to the right, which has occurred in many countries over the past ten years.

Such a shift in the political agenda has become clearly visible in the way the EU has decided to deal with the current crisis. European countries, almost all run at present by conservatives, seem to believe that austerity is the only way forward to tackle the crisis. Whether true or not, this has had the effect of making citizens feel that Europe cannot provide any social protection, thus disenfranchising them; this belief can lead easily towards nationalism and protectionism.

Political and economic wisdom, as well as analysis of the outcomes, should suggest that austerity, à la Merkel and Sarkozy, does not work. A Wall Street Journal article, published in 2009 warned of the risk of EU countries entering a vicious circle of deflationary ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ wage strategies; something which would endanger countries and lead to a spiral of poverty and lower living standards.

I am reluctant to accept historic comparisons which do not recognise the fact we live in an unprecedented time.

The process of European integration has now gone far enough that old remedies, such as currency devaluations and trade protectionism, are not viable solutions.

At the same time, solutions based on the traditional social-democratic vision of the big State are in my view outdated too, not only because resources are tight but also because big, state-led programmes have not always achieved what was hoped for.

It is within this context that Labour needs to develop a new narrative on Europe and I think the way to achieve this is by endorsing the original spirit of the Lisbon Strategy: to re-establish the social element as a key factor of growth.

Firstly, the EU is a single market, and it is in our interest to pursue a concerted social agenda among all member states. Equalising the social conditions of workers means ensuring we avoid a race to the bottom, which would ultimately affect us all. The reality is that the trend in reducing rights has already started. 

Secondly, we need to compete in the wider world. In 2006 I became head of human rights for Labour sister party in Italy, and I have since advocated that if we, as Europe, want to compete with, for example, China — a country which does not combine growth with rights — we cannot follow the same path, and would not want to.

Having recognised the importance of the social element as a key factor of growth, we can relish the challenge of developing a new social agenda in these tough times.

My argument applies very well to women: maternity rights as well as the provision of adequate and affordable childcare (topics which have always been at the very heart of the Lisbon agenda) are social priorities which will trigger growth. History shows us that removing the obstacles to women’s full participation in the labour market is a key factor for growth and the creation of wealth for households.

This is why I believe the European social agenda can give Labour the bedrock for a new narrative on Europe, so long as we restore its original spirit and we make it work in today’s tough times.

There are still a few tickets available for "Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?" on Saturday 25th February. Visit the Fabian Society website to get yours today.

Stop whingeing and start talking about why equality works

How often in an average day do you hear people whinge about how politicians are rubbish or about how Britain is not in the shape they would like it to be in? I'd say about ten.
Get my family or friends together and there will be a lot of moaning about how things should be better, but how many are out there trying to make that change? Hardly any.
If you want to create a fairer British society, then there needs to be more arguments about why a fairer society works better; about health outcomes, and crime patterns; about kids doing better in schools. There needs to be a stronger public discourse on what are the gains and losses and how they equate to daily life.
In his introduction to a debate in Cardiff this week Fabian general secretary Sunder Katwala made the point that "a lot of people believe that inequality is fair", because over time the arguments about who deserves what have established themselves as right and true.
As recent Fabian research shows, people will invent reasons to justify why some people earn a stratospheric salary, even if they don't exist, because they want to believe they live in a fair society.
It is important to challenge stereotypes about British society if you want to change public understanding, argued Katwala at the Fabian Society/JRF event.
When stereotypes fall into common use - chavs, scroungers and contrastingly the deserving rich - then they start to circulate without question.
As Katwala argued you also need to challenge fatalism, "if you believe poverty is inevitable then you will not support policies to address inequality".
Mass protest movements over time have shown that if the public exerts pressure and shows it cares enough it can move the public argument and political change is inevitable. Look at the suffragettes, the poll tax, civil rights, and in recent months we have seen the power of public movements in Iran to focus world attention on government action and inaction.
But mass movements are not only about street demonstrations. Work by NGOs such as Oxfam, Amnesty International, the RSPB or the National Trust have raised specific arguments and influenced policies.
There are various models for policy campaigners to learn from, but perhaps the best lesson is how Thatcherism won public hearts and minds by making very simplistic arguments - and making them over and over again, until they became accepted as truths.
At the debate, Welsh first minister Rhodri Morgan revealed an ambition to turn Wales into a "small, smart Nordic country" - not so much for the snowboarding and the glaciers - but because of the health and society benefits that Denmark and Sweden enjoy, compared with Wales.
He yearns for that Scandinavian sense of social solidarity - and willingness to redistribute from rich to poor to create a strong nation.
If Morgan wants persuasive evidence of the strength of the Nordic society he craves, then he can use the research of Pickett and Wilkinson which has strong international comparitive indicators.
He has made the first step towards his vision of a new Nordic-style Wales with the introduction of a new foundation phase of education modelled on Scandinavian kindergartens, which he hopes will improve aspiration and skills in deprived working-class Welsh neighbourhoods, so that smart poor kids are not overtaken in school by not-so-bright middle class kids by the age of eight.
But the reaction of a member of the Welsh audience immediately underlined why you need to make more effort to change the arguments and expectations and add a vision if you want to gather public support. The bloke at the back of the room said he had no idea that the foundation policy was inspired by the Nordic experience. Sell that vision Rhodri.
The Fabian/JRF public attitudes to inequality research not only shows public attitudes to the wages that people deserve to attitudes, but also to benefit payments.
It also found that the public was more supportive towards benefit payment to the unemployed if they felt those that received benefits would be make a contribution to society in the long-term.
A further step would be to ask the public what contributions they would be prepared to make to change policies, pay tax and deliver benefits if they felt they could live in a fairer Britain in future, and if that Britain had better health, lower crime and better education - how they would feel about contributing to that.

What price pensions for your old age?

The demographic timebomb and its impact on our ageing society was under discussion at a Fabian conference this morning.
A packed room tuned in to hear Vince Cable, economic whizz and everyone's favourite LibDem, turn his attention to pensions, and the potential conflict between the needs of the young and the needs of the older generation.
With increasing numbers of us living longer and expecting a good quality of life, the pressures are on the state to help at both ends of the timeline, he told the Fabian/Housing 21/Counsel and Care Ageing Society Policy Confererence.
As Cable suggests, in a recession those most hard hit may be the teenagers who cannot get into the job market and are stuck with ever increasing debt.
Discussion among the major political parties about protecting the health service last week, suggested a value judgement putting the needs of the elderly - the biggest users of health care -- above the young, he suggested. This didn't feel like the most populist thing to say when the demographics of the audience was definitely swinging towards the former.
But Vince plugged on - obviously unworried about a popularity poll - to talk about another timebomb - public sector pensions, a subject he dubbed "the biggest debate of next year".
Pensions don't feel like the most popular of subjects generally right now; what with M&S deciding to pull the plug on its scheme last week, and columnists (and others) suggesting public sector pensions are/should be due for the chop.
The problem is private sector schemes feel unreliable and often have costly fees, particularly for small savers, and with public sector pensions looking to have a gloomy future, the motivation to put money away at all seems to be draining away.
As those baby boomers head for a shifting retirement package, not enough is being done to build confidence in any alternative savings plan which feels like a safe or productive place to help people plan for their old age.

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

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

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

Full of wonder..at Christmas time

Switched on one of my favourite Christmas films on a cold night last week, ready to snuggle down on the sofa and disappear into escapism.
The film and the fire were crackling, candles lit, big glass of wine in my hand, all good so far. And then it all started to feel a bit less escapist, and a little bit more relevant than normal.
There was poor Jimmy Stewart, he had wanted to go to college, he had wanted to travel, but he never got to go, he had to hang in there and run the good old savings and loan, the family business that helped ordinary people get a home and a better life, when the big, bad bank run by the big bad banking nasty wouldn't have anything to do with them.
Through the general wonderfulness of the Bailey family (that's Jimmy Stewart to you), the world was shaping up to be a better place.
But then there was a run on the savings and loan; people were queueing up to take out their savings – and if they did it would all be over for the savings and loan – and the bank (read financial giants of all kinds) would have won, and society would be lost.
Jimmy Stewart went on to persuade the queue that if they all pulled together they could all be OK. They had all invested in each other's homes; they were all invested in a better society where everyone not just the rich got to improve their lives, and have important things like homes. So if they could just hang in there, help out a friend, and not get all selfish, things would be a lot better for them all.
And do you know what, and I guess you probably do, people listened to Jimmy (George Bailey), and the world continued to edge towards being a better place, at least for a little while.
Here in this little moral movie tale was the whole co-operative movement summed up: if we all combine our resources and help each other then we could do better than if we all struggled individually.
A great, or at least better, society is based on all these interconnections is the not-very-hidden message here, and if you help everyone else, they'll look after you when times get hard, and if not, and everyone sits behind a locked door, counting their coppers, and acting selfishly nothing ever gets better for the mass of society.
And in a schmaltszy kind of way, It's A Wonderful Life feels like a more important film this year. This was a film made just after a recession, and a war, about creating a better society when times were tough. It has a strong – all pull together message. Packed with homilies, but that's fine at Christmas.
Enjoy your favourite Christmas films. For more Christmas nostaglia, see this great BBC collection.

Whose third sector is it anyway?

Just got back from the annual NCVO Political Conference, where David Blunkett was launching his Fabian Freethinking paper on the third sector, published today.

So what to make of it all?

Firstly, hats off to Blunkett for hijacking the third sector’s major annual conference and using it as a Fabian launch event – one has to admire his gumption. Francis Maude, who joined him on the platform, acknowledged as much, saying ‘it is of course a great privilege to be involved in David Blunkett’s book launch…’

But - more significantly - it was useful to have Maude there, because his and Blunkett’s keynote speeches were quite instructive about the divisions between the parties on all this.

It wasn’t a partisan ding-dong by any means and was all very consensual and pleasant – especially on the changes wrought by recession, which will heighten the importance of volunteering and community (and therefore the third sector, though it was interesting to hear Maude state very clearly that ‘there are of course no good effects of a recession’, not wishing to fall into the Lansley trap), and mean money from charitable donations is likely to dry up.

But there were a few interesting points of division that are worth flagging up.

Mostly what was fascinating was the sharp difference in tone between Blunkett and Maude. Maude began and ended quite touchy-feely, but the meat of the piece fairly accurately represented what you might expect a Tory platform on the third sector to look like: we need a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ to tackle unprecedented levels of reoffending, fuelled by addiction, illiteracy and family breakdown; the state consistently fails to get those who have never worked, lone parents, and those on incapacity benefit back to work; charities should be paid by results; and the third sector is means of saving taxpayer money and delivering services more efficiently and effectively. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of these points, the thrust was clear – the third sector is first and foremost a tool for administering the remedy to ‘breakdown Britain.’ The lack of any surprises was surprising.

Blunkett was engaging and obviously takes this stuff very seriously. He also admitted and addressed some of the flaws in his paper – it contains ‘very few new ideas’, and the compulsion that might be necessary for some of his proposals to have teeth isn’t possible because ‘voluntary means voluntary’ – but what was striking was his stress on mutuality; the importance of community; and the strength to society that comes from volunteering. It was less about using the voluntary and community sector as a means of delivering a service and more about people giving their time to improve their lot and the lot of those around them. He also talked a fair amount about ‘strengthening the glue’ of society – and as someone remarked to me, first as Home Secretary he downgraded cannabis and now he’s strengthening the glue…

So Blunkett and Maude highlighted two different models of the third sector: community versus efficiency. As people are increasingly saying, after a longish period of wafer-thin wedge issues, the policy and philosophical differences between Labour and the Conservatives are reasserting themselves, and they were clearly on display here again.

No wonder there's a shortage of social workers

Fair point, well made by Polly Toynbee about society's need to vilify social workers whatever their decisions. Who'd be a social worker with the massive responsibility for people's lives in their hands? Many of us worry about our jobs but how many wake up in the middle of the night worrying we have wrecked people's futures or that a decision made or not made led to a child's death? No wonder then that there is a shortage of people who want to take on that heavy and responsible role.

Tax breaks for couples is not family-friendly

Written by guest author, Conor McGinn.

It would appear that I am not alone in opposing David Cameron's plans to give tax breaks to married couples. I think it is particularly deceitful and wrong that he is proposing this as a family-friendly policy.

I believe in the institution of marriage. I think it plays an important and relevant role in many people's lives, and that it is the clearest expression of a couple's love for and commitment to each other. I have no difficulty with politicians promoting marriage as a good thing, and I think it is wrong to dismiss the fact that many people believe in marriage as an important precursor to having children, and also believe that it is the best environment in which to raise a family. That is a personal choice that people should be able to make, and it is one that I believe is right for me.

But I am the first to acknowledge that there are many, many families who do not conform to this orthodoxy and that they too provide loving, caring and stable homes for children. Single parents, unmarried couples, same-sex partners and all sorts of other types of family units exist and are entitled to help and support too. But David Cameron wants to discriminate against them by an ill thought-out policy that is reminiscent of John Major's 'Back to Basics' campaign.

I think Dr Katherine Rake of the Fawcett Society sums it up best when she says of Cameron's policy:

"If your aim is to help parents provide a stable, loving home for children, policy needs to be aimed at supporting parents - not simply people who are married. Otherwise it penalises all those children living with unmarried parents or with one parent - and 90% of lone parents are women."This tax break would give better treatment to a man [or woman - my addition] who has had an affair, left their partner and remarried... It would privilege a childless couple who have been married a week over an unmarried couple of 20 years standing with three kids, and would be an unfair and counterproductive tax break."

Further to this the tax break would only apply if one partner does not work or earns less than the tax-free allowance all earners receive of around £5,200 a year. This partner could then transfer any unused tax allowance to their working partner. So the scheme would therefore encourage married couples to specialise caring and earning roles, rather than sharing them equally. So whilst the Labour government extends paid maternity and paternity leave, and develops schemes to help single parents return to work (not to mention Surestart), the Tories want women to stay at home and mind the weans while the men go out and earn a crust.

Oh, and if they are married, sure the women will get a few extra quid towards the housekeeping.