I do not believe that Britain is an illiberal country when it comes to, for example, views about being British. Data from the British Social Attitudes Survey backs up this view. But I do think we are seeing increased illiberalism, and anti-liberalism, in our politics, perhaps in part influenced by the increasingly extreme far right politics in the US. The Labour party has a responsibility, as a government and as a centre-left political tradition, to counter this illiberalism, which takes different forms.

Past Liberal thinkers – including William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes – made hugely significant contributions to Britain’s – and Labour’s – postwar story. The social democratic tradition developed over the last century and half delivers important liberal goals as part of a collective, shared endeavour: individual flourishing within strong communities and through collective action. The current Labour government should be more confident in its social democratic ideology. That includes the left-liberal component that upholds and strengthens universal rights, defends a shared concept of humanity, permits dissent in a healthy democratic polity, and trusts in public policies that we know deliver on Labour values and strengthen our society – in both the short and the long term.

The case for greater liberalism is not accepted by everyone within the Labour party. Most obviously, the Blue Labour faction privileges a conservative component within Labour’s ideology. Today’s Blue Labour thinking, as Marc Stears recently argued, is Trump-inspired in someways. Amid Trump’s politics, Labour’s liberal politics just won’t work – so goes the Blue Labour argument. Maurice Glasman recently told the Observer that he wanted to see welfare cuts, and criticised Labour politicians defending ‘free stuff’. An MP sympathetic to Blue Labour was ‘happy ‘to say the higher education sector – full disclosure, I work in a UK university – should be hollowed out. A Blue Labour policy statement suggested Labour should be opposed to equality, diversity and inclusion policies.

These are bad ideas. Blue Labour thinkers seem to believe that defeating left liberalism is key to Labour’s success. Yet that ignores the progress that has been, and can, be made through Labour’s social democratic political tradition: life-changing public services like Sure Start, equalities legislation to tackle discrimination, a human rights framework to challenge decision-making, to name a few.

Enhancing Labour’s liberalism

These debates can appear rather abstract – a distraction when many in politics want to be ‘getting on with the job’. But ideological debates matter, including when a party is in office. Whether intentionally or through circumstance, governments can become inconsistent by following the ups and downs of the political agenda. Having a coherent ideology is an underappreciated way of avoiding or managing a busy, unpredictable political environment. Indeed, it may be that Blue Labour gets so much attention in part because some of the people involved speak in very ideological ways: they talk about conservatism, liberalism, socialism and capitalism. Social democrats should be encouraged to do this, too. To be ideological is not to be dogmatic. It is to talk about your understanding of the world and why you think it makes sense. And it is something Keir Starmer should do more of.

In relation to Labour’s liberalism, I would highlight the government’s approach to migration as a key area where it needs to act with more confidence. There are many others that could be discussed too; I am sure some are springing to the reader’s mind right now. I have opted for migration because of the attention it has received in Labour’s first year or so in office, and the connection to Labour’s social democratic-liberal tradition: the liberty and freedom of the individual, within an egalitarian politics that believes in shared provision, and a ‘common endeavour’. Some undoubtedly positive moves have come from the government: cancelling the Rwanda scheme, for example. Bridget Phillipson’s rhetoric on international student migration has also marked a welcome change, and the government as a whole – no doubt with significant input from the Department for Education – announced the continuation of a right to remain in the UK after graduation for a period, albeit reduced to 18 months.

In other areas, policymaking has gone in an illiberal direction, including around settlement and citizenship rules. But the area I wish to focus on in particular, and where Labour’s liberalism has very obviously been in retreat, is the government’s overall position on migration as encapsulated in its political rhetoric. Here, Keir Starmer’s comments on migration have been deeply troubling.

I wrote in my pre-election book, Getting Over New Labour, that while a migration bureaucracy is clearly necessary, migration policymaking is located within a wider politics that includes racism, misinformation, and scapegoating. It is the responsibility of Labour politicians to influence this wider political environment, and to contribute both values and evidence to the debate. The prime minister’s rhetoric on migration has fallen short, to say the least. He has since expressed some regret for his choice of words, among them the suggestion that the UK risked becoming an ‘island of strangers’. Yet the Labour leadership’s approach to migration has, for sometime, played with fire. Attacking the Conservatives for ‘a one-nation experiment in open borders’, for example, chose political attack over progressive politics.

Since the summer, and the attention Nigel Farage and Reform UK have received, the government has appeared even more reactive, and even less confident in its values. With the level of net migration now on a downwards trajectory, Labour should have seized this moment to disaggregate the statistics in public policy terms, and to reframe the debate in terms of the (perfectly good) reasons for issuing visas to enter the UK. Policy debates can then be had around the work, study and family routes, with a focus on the evidence and centred around real choices that people can engage with. On asylum policy, it is welcome that the government has recognised the only way to fully address small boat crossings is an agreement with the French government. Yet the pilot scheme announced is some distance from what is required. A UK-French process for applicants in France is key. That way, people can access a clear, rights-respecting asylum process. This would reduce small boat crossings as well as the number of people awaiting a decision in the UK.

Conclusion

Labour’s agency – its power to influence our politics and the ideas that feed into it – has appeared somewhat limited in office. In relation to the prime minister specifically, some notable interventions have been recognised as mistakes, and seemed to – whether through accident or design – emphasise the agendas of rival political forces. One of those forces is illiberalism, coming from parts of the British right: something that may partly define the next election and the years beyond. Labour needs the confidence to challenge these ideas, and to use its political capital in ways that can further a longstanding, contrasting set of values. In the face of illiberalism, we should defend liberalism.

Image credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm via Unsplash 

The post Hearts and minds first appeared on Fabian Society.

Farage’s rise will be aided and abetted by other parties who offer false hope but can’t deliver change. The Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Plaid, and the SNP all fall into this category. Only Labour is big enough and strong enough to prevent Farage taking power – and a second term Labour government is essential to deliver the progressive change our country so desperately needs.

It is in this context that our deputy leadership campaign needs to be understood: what will empower the Labour party to face down Farage and his band of racists, anti-vaxxers and domestic abusers at the next election? And to that end, what is the deputy leadership for?

If we listen to some media commentary, the deputy leadership is a ‘post for a northern woman’. What utter drivel. As I wrote for the Fabians in 2021: “Many of the concerns and priorities of the people who we need to vote Labour…are not actually that different between Darlington and Dagenham, or…between Hull and Hampstead.” This isn’t about regional or gender balance, and it certainly isn’t about a proxy war for the top job between two men. Look at John Prescott. Look at Harriet Harman. The best Labour deputy leaders had a seat at the cabinet table, and encouraged everyone else at it to remember how they got there and in whose interests they had pledged to serve. They encouraged the government to remember Labour’s values and to put them into action. They didn’t throw rocks from the outside – they took a mandate from the membership to the table and pushed for change.

I understand members are frustrated by some of the decisions we have taken in government and the story we have allowed our opponents to tell about us. I say we should push back, be proud and confident in what we have achieved, and go further and faster on progressive change.

As education secretary, I’ve opened school-based nurseries, revived Sure Start for a new generation, extended free school meals to more low-income families and opened breakfast clubs. On childcare, families are £7,500 better off thanks to reforms introduced on my watch, and we have capped the number of branded items schools can ask for to help families with the cost of living.

I have also stood up to vested interests. I faced day after day of attacks and scare stories over our policy to end tax breaks for private schools. I stood firm and asked people who could afford to send their children to private school to pay a little more. As a result, we have generated more money for public services, including our state schools.

The overlooked story of this government is one of quiet radicalism. The biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation; a publicly-owned energy generation company; NHS waiting lists falling; £150 off energy bills extended to more of the poorest households; and those who have the most being asked to pay a little more – whether private schools, millionaire landowners, or private jet owners.

This is a radical, redistributive Labour government in action. We need to shout about it more.

That’s why I have pledged to carry on Angela Rayner’s role as a campaigning deputy leader.  I will take this message of radical progressive change to every part if the country. If that means being criticised by vested interests, the right-wing media and bad faith actors, so be it – the stakes are simply too high.

I have pushed through popular progressive policies before. Now I am asking Labour members to give me a mandate which will allow me to push the government to go further and faster from my seat at the cabinet table.

Policies like ending the two-child limit. In my role as co-chair of the Child Poverty Task Force, I have said that ending the two-child limit is on the table.

Labour governments lift people out of poverty. It’s what we do, it’s why I’m in this party, and it’s why I’m in politics. I grew up in a tough council street in a single parent household. A neighbour pushed an envelope with a banknote through the letterbox one cold winter. “For Bridget’s coat,” it said.

This is how we beat Reform. They want to divide our country, while we want to find a common sense of purpose and solidarity among all of our people, regardless of background, gender, race, creed or class.

We won’t beat them, however, if we ourselves are divided as a party. We won’t win with a deputy leader on the outside, throwing rocks and with no clout.

Divided parties don’t win elections. Labour members know that better than most. We spent 14 long years in opposition because we couldn’t win elections, and saw the country suffer as a result.

That didn’t feed a single hungry child. It entertained the Westminster bubble, but it failed the people who the Labour party was founded to represent and who Labour governments are supposed to serve.

We won the last general election because we came together to show the country a different vision of the future.

I will unite our party around our common values, delivering our common aims and beating our opponents. And I will never lose sight of the country that our movement seeks to build, the progressive change we seek to deliver, and the vested interests we stand against.

That’s why this deputy leadership election is so important. Nigel Farage knows a divided Labour party is his best route to seizing power. A united Labour party battling for social justice can face him down.

The post Quiet radicalism first appeared on Fabian Society.

These divides are growing. Some of us can afford to live a good life, while others cannot. Some of us are moving to cities, while others stay put. Some of us live within our communities, while others find community online.  Economic anxiety, geographic divides, and online anger are making people feel that their way of life, and that of their children, is being threatened. Those on the political extremes seek to exploit this fear and widen our divisions. Easier than the real explanation, our problems are painted by others as the fault of either immigrants or big business – those thems.

To overcome this fear and unite our nation, we need both a policy and a political answer. We need to ensure every single person in this country can live a good life and unite under a common notion of Britishness – building on our strengths as one of the most trusting and least racist nations on earth. A Britishness that celebrates the decency, unity and determination that defines us.

Fear, anger, and mutual suspicion are growing as more and more Brits feel their way of life, and that of their children, is fundamentally threatened. When people are asked to describe how they feel about their children’s future, the top five answers are: worried, uncertain, frustrated, conflicted, and angry. That anxiety and fear is leading to a deep desire for people to hunker down and protect those closest to them by seeking safety in a group. We all live in such groups, but the danger is that different groups are increasingly being pitted against one another within our nation. Rather than viewing our group as a different part of the same whole, people are increasingly fearful of others.

Human beings are naturally groupish. We sort the world into ‘us’ and ‘thems’.[1] Being able to relate to a broad ‘us’, which includes those beyond our immediate kin and friends, is the driving force behind human civilisation. It is why Britain has achieved remarkable things in our history: from pioneering the industrial revolution to protecting democracy in Europe. Throughout our history, our greatest moments have been founded in a collective British ‘us’ that includes all of us. Consider the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, when we sacrificed our own wellbeing to protect the lives of perfect strangers. We overcame seemingly impossible changes by standing together, rooted in common concerns, interests, and connections to one another.

The danger for the UK, and other high-income nations today, is that deep in group-out group divides are opening up. Our notion of Britishness is being undermined by radical parties dividing us into the ‘real’ British us and any number of un-British thems who are the source of all our problems.

A unified sense of what it means to be British is decaying because our experiences, information, and emotional outlook differ wildly. We are divided economically, geographically, and culturally, which is leading us to experience and feel about our country very differently. The feeling that there are those who can get on in life and those who cannot is leading to rising mistrust and division.

Wealth and the number of billionaires is rising while record numbers cannot afford the basics, and half believe the cost-of-living will never end. We are increasingly segregated by where we live, with graduates moving to work in major cities while their non-graduate counterparts remain near the place they were born. We spend, on average, more than two-and-a-half hours scrolling in different online spaces, increasingly engaging only with algorithms designed to keep us in echo chambers. This is causing loneliness to rise, which in turn leads to a deep desire to be a part of a group – an us – that can protect us in difficult times.

Seeking security, connection, and certainty from belonging to a group is a powerful psychological instinct that goes into overdrive when people feel their way of life is threatened. Hannah Arendt wrote powerfully about how these instincts helped to drive and fuel radical political movements.[2]

Today, these threats include both falling economic prospects and the social exclusion that comes with rising inequality. When the gap between the rich and poor widens, every person in society becomes more stressed and less trusting of others.[3] Cooperation falls as people understand and interact with each other [4] less and less.  At the same time, many people are also seeing their economic prospects decline rapidly. People who were previously getting on just fine decades ago – or saw their parents doing so – are no longer. These people, often against the backdrop of insecure economic and social lives, then seek a sense of connection, security, and certainty within a group. The groups catering to the psychological needs of the economically and socially insecure are those that provide security and certainty by defining all the threats to one’s life as due to another group: those un-British ‘thems’ over there. This has a perverse psychological benefit: people feel less stressed when coalescing around a common enemy or when they scapegoat those with less social status[5].Punching down can, unfortunately, be a cathartic way to make sense of the world, as well as a form of self-protection when one’s position in society is threatened.

On top of this deep and widening divide, people are finding the present and future an increasingly scary place. Around 80 per cent think the world is more dangerous today, while 75 per cent feel the government has little control over it. Around three-quarters of the population feel that Britain’s best days are behind it, while half feel that the next generation will have a worse future than their parents. Put all this together, and when looking at the future, rather than feeling hope, excitement, or contentment, people are feeling fear and anxiety.

We must meet the fear, anxiety, division, and uncertainty that defines our moment.  Understanding why people have such a deep desire for change and why, as a nation, we understand each other less and less. Radical voters, who feel more threatened than the rest, are drawn towards strong leaders who promise to fix things with a vision of what Britian could be. We need a policy answer which makes it possible for everyone to live a good life and a political answer based on a notion of Britishness that celebrates the decency, unity and determination that defines Britain at its best.

In Britain and other high-income nations today, it is hard to explain the forces that are making some of us far poorer than others. This is why simple populist rhetoric has such a powerful and pernicious hold. As Labour Together found in their research on the cost-of living crisis: “Voters cannot understand how a crisis on this scale could have happened in a country that was supposed to be one of the wealthiest in the world.”  This echoes the 1930s, when a hard-to-explain financial crisis made some people far poorer and led to rising division, anger, and radical voting. By contrast, when the pandemic struck in 2020, and during the second world war, Britain pulled together as one people, fighting against a common enemy. Today, in 2025, we are again combatting hard-to-explain, impersonal economic forces which are hitting some more than others, leaving us with little sense of Britain’s collective struggle.

The radical fringes on both sides of politics are feeding on this lack of collective identity to widen Britain’s divides. They are helping those who cannot afford a decent life to view the world through a prism of the threatened “us” vs. comfortable “thems.” Unlike mainstream voters who are relatively well off, voters that are likely to support radical parties believe life was more affordable 30 years ago and that their way of life is threatened. On the one hand, Nigel Farage tells us that “mass migration is making us poorer in every single way”; on the other,  Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana argue that “the problems in our society are caused by… corporations and billionaires.”  They provide a simple and emotionally compelling answer to incredibly complex issues. This is dangerous, divisive, and wrong. It is not a case of ‘us’ vs ‘them,’ but a collective British struggle to meet this moment, standing together, united.

There is a gap for defining a notion of Britishness that brings us together rather than drives us apart. A vision that builds a British identity based on our strengths, not our weaknesses. When asked what it means to be British, strong and growing numbers believe it is what we do (eg, to respect British institutions or have citizenship), rather than how we are born. There is a way of defining our nation that pulls everyone into a common us.

The Britishness I know is not divisive.  Radical politicians do not espouse majority views, nor do they live up to the greatest traditions of this nation. Rather than being proud of our country, they do it down. We are not the thugs Farage sought to excuse in last years protests; as Orwell put it: “the gentleness of the English [is our] most marked characteristic.”[6]

If we want this nation to succeed in the most dangerous and violent time this country has known in over a century, then our political project must ensure every person in Britain can live a decent life within a vision of Britain that unites us. This runs through our policy and our politics. Our policies must ensure that everyone can live a decent life, connect us more with one another, and reduce the violent divisions that begin in echo chambers. Our politics must provide an emotionally compelling vision of Britishness that draws everyone in, regardless of their background. A Britishness that encapsulates the unity, decency, and determination of our nation. A Britishness that is proud of our greatest traditions and history as well as those small everyday moments that make us who we are: politely queuing, a cup of tea, and even a cheeky pint. A Britishness that lives up to our greatest traditions by creating a better future for each and every one of us.

Image credit: Victor Allen via Flickr

The post Fear and Loathing in Britain first appeared on Fabian Society.

This is particularly true for young people. In 2024, there were almost 14,000 young people in prison – and this looks set to increase by 50 per cent by 2026. Young adult wellbeing in prison is significantly poorer than for older people in prison – with worse experiences of mental health, higher rates of self-harm and lower engagement in education or employment, young people are consequently more likely to reoffend.

Oddly, tailored support for young people in prison is extremely limited, despite the many reasons to target this group. Whileyoung people in custody have distinct needs, they also possess unique strengths. As the prison and probation service argues: “late teenage years are… the time when a young adult is most likely to desist from crime. Young adulthood is a crucial opportunity for… the right interventions.”

Coaching, like that provided by SparkInside, is a particularly powerful tool for young people. Coaching is a facilitated conversation designed to allow individuals to find their own solutions to their own problems. Unlike mentoring, for example, coaching offers very little advice or guidance, on the basis that each person is the expert on their own life.

Instead of telling them what to do, coaching empowers people to make their own, more positive decisions and to start building the future they want. It is focused on their potential, and the tools gained can enable them to achieve their goals in the most difficult of circumstances. We can see this through both our impact data and direct feedback. In 2024, 98 per cent of young people we coached reported making progress in their lives. Seventy-five per cent made progress in work or education, giving them the opportunity to move away from crime into productive futures.

There is clear evidence – including the Ministry of Justice’s analysis of our programme – that coaching of young people reduces reoffending. We think this is because it gives young people the skills and mindset to make the most of their talents and opportunities and escape the ‘revolving door’ of prison. All of which has a ripple effect beyond prison walls – taking one of our programmes as an example, every £1 invested generates at least £5.94worth of benefits to society. As Labour seeks to achieve its five missions in an unforgiving fiscal climate, this is exactly the sort of low-cost, high impact intervention ministers should be exploring. Prisoners are not the only ones who can benefit from a coaching-centred approach. In environments that are increasingly overcrowded and chaotic, it’s more important than ever to invest in staff, who, as the 2021 prisons white paper said, hold “the greatest potential to make prison safe, secure and decent… places that help prisoners turn their lives around.” They are the key to creating rehabilitative cultures that support change and progression.

In 2020, during the height of Covid-19, we started coaching prison staff. Five years on, we’ve coached more than 100 staff, from officers to governors. An evaluation by The University of Lincoln showed our coaching enabled prison staff to build resilience, manage stress and improve their wellbeing, with participants welcoming the opportunity to speak to someone independent from the system.

We hope the Labour government brings fresh thinking about our prisons and how we approach rehabilitation. We believe now is the time to make coaching mainstream in criminal justice, and we urge the government to invest in this powerful, proven approach so that many more young people, prison staff and prison cultures can benefit from it.

Image Credit: Neil Theasby via Creative Commons

The post Self help first appeared on Fabian Society.

Today, Afghanistan once again sits at the intersection of sports and global affairs. With the return of the Taliban, there are calls for a sporting boycott – specifically of the cricket team, as urged by Tonia Antoniazzi MP before England’s match on 27 February. However, I believe any boycott would be a mistake, ignoring as it does the symbolic value of cricket for those resisting Taliban rule.

Afghan cricketers defy the Taliban

Under the Taliban’s first rule, cricket was banned. After2001, Afghanistan’s cricket team formed with no funding, playing under the tricolour flag – a symbol millions fought under to free Afghanistan from colonialism. Today, the team still raises the tricolour flag and sings the national anthem – both now banned by the Taliban. Many Afghans have been imprisoned or killed for doing the same. The team is even prohibited from playing inside Afghanistan – cricket is a ‘sport of the infidels’.

When the Taliban took power in 2021, Afghanistan was set to play in the T20 World Cup. The Taliban demanded the team use their white flag and replace the anthem with an Islamic prayer. The players refused, saying they’d rather withdraw. After intervention from the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Qatar, the Taliban backed down.

In their first match post-Taliban takeover, Afghanistan played against Scotland, raising the tricolour flag and singing the anthem. Captain Mohammad Nabi was in tears. The team’s success is an act of defiance, proving that the ideals Afghans fought for live on. Afghan cricketers also face the same oppression as the rest of the population. They live in Afghanistan, and their own daughters are denied education – just like millions of other Afghan girls.

Publicly opposing the Taliban is a death sentence

Some argue Afghan cricketers should publicly denounce the Taliban. But the Taliban are not just an authoritarian regime – they are an armed extremist group that kills those who defy them. Even families of journalists and activists who speak out have been targeted.

Despite the risks, players like Gulbadin Naib have made silent but powerful impact. He donated his man of the match winnings to Afghan flood victims in the north of the country, highlighting the Taliban’s refusal to help disaster-stricken areas. Other cricketers support Afghan causes with their earnings.

A boycott would feed dangerous ethnic divisions

Separatist diaspora groups have exploited the boycott campaign to fuel ethnic tensions, misleading British MPs. They claim that since both the Taliban and much of the Afghan cricket team share the same ethnic background, the team must be a PR tool of the regime.

This argument is not only false but dangerous. Afghanistan’s cricket team was founded after the fall of the first Taliban regime in 2001 and has always represented the country as a whole. The claim echoes outdated colonial narratives that associate Pashtuns – the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan – with extremism, ignoring the fact that past Pashtun leaders, such as King Amanullah Khan and Prince Daud Khan, championed women’s rights and education. Holding Afghan cricketers accountable for the Taliban’s actions solely because they are Pashtun amounts to collective punishment. Pashtuns themselves are also suffering greatly under the Taliban’s rule.

When the British Chargé affairs takes pictures with the Taliban, standing next to their flag and smiling with them, it’s not considered propaganda. But when the Afghan cricket team does the same to ensure they can continue playing, critics accuse them of being Taliban puppets. The hypocrisy is rife – we need to hold our own government officials to account before pointing fingers at Afghans forced to survive under a brutal regime.

Boycotting the men’s team won’t help Afghan women’s cricket

A key argument for boycotting the men’s team is that the Taliban has erased Afghan women’s cricket. But instead of punishing the men’s team, efforts should focus on supporting Afghan women’s teams in exile. The issue is not the participation of the Afghan men’s team – it’s the Taliban’s repression.

A simple solution exists: The ICC can invest in Afghan women’s cricket in exile, providing financial and logistical support so that they can compete internationally. This would send a direct message to the Taliban that banning women from sports is unacceptable.

Currently, the ICC doesn’t recognise the Afghan women’s cricket team (currently in exile in Australia) because Taliban laws inside Afghanistan ban women from sports. But if a majority of countries in the world do not recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, what is stopping the ICC from making a far more powerful statement than any boycott of the men’s team?

Joy as a form of resistance

Throughout history, joy has been an act of resistance. The Taliban enforces a joyless rule – banning music, books, and free thought. Cricket, and the symbols it upholds, represent resilience and defiance. Every time the Afghan flag is raised, every time the anthem is sung, it reminds Afghans that their identity and history cannot be erased. British MPs may dismiss this argument, but for Afghans, seeing their flag at international events offers a rare glimmer of hope. Just look at the celebrations when Afghanistan knocked England out of the ICC Champions Trophy on February 27 – fans inside Afghanistan, in exile, and even in Pakistan’s Gaddafi stadium erupted with joy.

A boycott sends the wrong message

Some argue that even if a boycott doesn’t force change, it still signals opposition to gender apartheid. But the world has already normalised the Taliban in far more significant ways, including the signing of the Doha deal, which is a surrender deal in the eyes of many Afghans; continuing financial aid to the Taliban from the US and Europe; the UAE and China accepting Taliban ambassadors; and European governments shutting down Afghan embassies, making it harder for exiled Afghans to get consular support. In September 2024, the Afghan embassy in London closed – according to the ambassador, at the request of the new Labour government.

The Taliban won’t care if Afghanistan is banned from cricket. Indeed, they see cricket as the enemy. A boycott would only isolate ordinary Afghans while international—governments cosy up to the Taliban regime.

Afghanistan needs real action, not gestures

If the international community is serious about holding the Taliban accountable, it should:

• Recognise gender apartheid at the International Court of Justice.
• Issue international criminal court arrest warrants for Taliban leaders and their enablers.
• Impose travel bans on Taliban officials and supporters.
• Refuse to recognise the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government.
• Impose economic sanctions and cut off aid that benefits the Taliban.

If sporting bodies want to help, they should officially recognise Afghan women’s teams in exile and provide them with financial and logistical support to play.

A boycott of the Afghan men’s cricket team won’t punish the Taliban – it will punish athletes who have defied them. It will weaken a nation that overwhelmingly rejects the Taliban and allows the international community to substitute real action with empty gestures. Afghanistan deserves better.

Image Credit: DJ Horton via Creative Commons

The post Off target first appeared on Fabian Society.

Anas Sarwar MSP

2024 could not be more critical for Scotland and for Scottish Labour. We face the most important general election in a generation. The SNP say they want to send a message to Westminster – we want to send a government. This is our chance to deliver the change that Scotland needs.

Scottish Fabians research last year showed that not only does Scotland have a crucial role to play in delivering a Labour government, but that the answers to how we renew and revive Labour’s appeal across the UK lie in Scotland – “the first red wall to fall”.

This year is our opportunity to send Scottish MPs to Westminster who will sit at the heart of a Labour administration. The Fabian Society and the Scottish Fabians have been crucial to making this possible by turning Scottish Labour back into a party of government.

As the Fabian Society celebrates its 140th year, the Scottish Parliament will celebrate 25 years. A quarter of a century from when our party created the Scottish Parliament, our opponents have failed to make it work for the people of Scotland.

We have come a long way, but there is still much work to do. The election is on a knife-edge. It will take all our activists working hard to get these seats over the line. I know I can rely on Scottish Fabian members to get out and fight for our shared values.

A Labour government will be an opportunity to reset devolution and take it back to if founding principles. Devolution was always meant to be about Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It was always meant to be about empowering local communities. It was never meant to be an end in itself but a means to an end – a fairer, more equal society. I know that the Fabian Society shares this vision, and I look forward to working with it to deliver the change that Scotland needs.

Anas Sarwar is the leader of Scottish Labour

LJ Davies

Politics affects us all, but much of its infrastructure is heavily concentrated in London. Right from the start, however, we at the Fabian Society have had a presence across the United Kingdom in the form of our local societies. Local Fabian societies provide a space for people on the left to meet and debate political issues and how they affect their local communities.

Each local society is different. Some focus on local government issues and act as a thinktank for their area. Some provide a forum for discussion of national issues. Some are small, others large, with bigger branches having more than 100 members. Many are affiliated to their local Labour party units and feed policy expertise and ideas into their constituency structures. All of them contribute to Fabian traditions and our reach across the country.

The local societies are part of what makes the Fabians special, and after a difficult period during the pandemic they are going from strength to strength. You can find details of local societies near you on the Fabian website – or contact our local societies convenor if you’re interested in setting one up and taking Fabian ideas into the future throughout the country.

LJ Davies is the local societies representative on the Fabian Society’s executive committee and a Labour & Co-operative councillor for Smethwick

The Fabian Society’s place in the labour movement

David Blunkett

When I was a student at the University of Sheffield, one of my tutors was Royden Harrison, professor of history. After he moved to Warwick – where his reputation blossomed – I kept in touch with him and his wife Pauline (they retained their home in Sheffield). On many occasions I had a very pleasant evening meal with them, though they often felt more like a tutorial – and when I was in government, an inquisition!

Royden later took on the task of writing a biography of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, who formed the core of the early Fabian Society. To the outside observer, Fabianism, and therefore the Fabian Society, was a euphemism for gradualism. Yet, as one of the three strands that led to the establishment of the Labour party, and which still shapes the British left today, it was much more than that.

The Social Democratic Federation, the craft trade unions and the Fabian strand of social democracy blended together. The first – contrary to its name – was, of course, Marxist. The second represented the practical implementation of the struggle of Labour to counteract exploitation and to give a voice to workers. But Fabian discussion and analysis was the educative core and, in many ways, the moral voice, arguing for the values of equality, mutuality and reciprocity which so desperately need shoring up today.

On this anniversary, it’s worth reflecting on the tension, so common on the left-of-centre, between nostalgia for a bygone era and the stark reality of modern challenges, and how the Fabian Society has navigated this tension in the past. Historically, partly because of the influence of Sidney Webb, the Fabian Society was seen as promoting the ‘big state’, taken up in the post-second world war era by Herbert Morrison, and a top-down approach to both nationalisation and the welfare state. Yet over 40 years ago, I, together with Professor Geoff Green (now at Sheffield Hallam University), wrote a small Fabian pamphlet called Building from the Bottom. It was the Fabian Society which gave us voice to describe the ‘Third Way’ long before Anthony Giddens coined the phrase in the 1990s.

David Blunkett is a Labour peer. He served as Home Secretary, Education Secretary and Work and Pensions Secretary under Tony Blair

Kirsty McNeill

The Fabian Society has sometimes been characterised as the home of ‘pamphlet’ Labour, a place for thinkers and theorists who hold themselves apart – perhaps even aloof – from ‘leaflet Labour’, the tribe concerned with the nuts and bolts of winning elections. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I used my speech at the Fabian new year conference in January to call time on this damaging distinction.

Our Fabian predecessors helped form the Labour party precisely because the redistribution of power to working people through parliamentary means was their ultimate objective, both ethically and strategically. In joining forces with the trade unions, we created the greatest fighting force for fairness this country has ever known, and we have been combining the politics of ideas and the politics of organisation ever since.

Over the last 140 years, this bilateral partnership with the trade union movement has become ever more porous. We have also learnt from and incorporated a plethora of other progressive traditions including feminism, environmentalism and the co-operative movement. While we must constantly be adapting to new times and new trends, one thing has remained unchanged since the society’s formation: as Fabians, it is our privilege but also our obligation not just to generate policies but to get out there and fight for them. That is how we will make 2024 a year that our Fabian forebears would be proud of – and that will inspire those who follow us. I look forward to seeing many of my fellow Fabians on the campaign trail in the months to come.

Kirsty McNeill is the Labour parliamentary candidate for Midlothian. Her pamphlet, Counter Culture: How to Resist the Culture Wars and Build 21st Century Solidarity, co-written with Roger Harding, was published by the Fabian Society in 2021

Illustrations: Matt Holland

The post Onwards and upwards – Vol 2 first appeared on Fabian Society.

This is the incredulous response that the Worthing Labour group has slowly become used to over the past year. Despite its proximity to our much funkier neighbour, Brighton, our coastal Sussex town was for a long time known locally as ‘God’s waiting room’. Worthing Labour party was effectively three blokes sat round a kitchen table drawing lots as to which one would suffer the misfortune of putting their face on a leaflet for the annual council elections.

But over time, green – or rather red – shoots appeared.

The three blokes were joined by disaffected locals, families and younger people moving into the area who thought that it was time for a change. We rolled up our sleeves and got to work: year-round door knocking; street stalls; getting involved with and building new community projects; listening to residents tell us what was happening in their lives and how the council was helping (or not). Meanwhile, the Conservative administration was busy conserving itself behind the locked doors of the town hall, out of ideas and with fingers firmly in ears.

From winning our first council seat in 41 years in 2017 to taking control of the council with 23 seats in 2022, we built up a picture of who was living in our town, what their needs were, where the big problems were coming up time and again and what a Labour council could offer in response.

I doubt that it will come as any surprise that our main priorities are social housing (we don’t have any); urban greening – Worthing is a classic seaside town, buried under concrete and forgotten about from the 70s onwards; economic regeneration – our coastal version of the Preston model builds our climate emergency response into community wealth building, featuring a green business park, green skills building, and more; and a sustainable transport network (Worthing and the surrounding coastal areas are flat and urban – walking, cycling and public transport should be a no brainer).

In our first year of office, our priorities have sometimes had to take a back seat to the brick wall, slap-in-the-face-with-a-wet-fish cost of living emergency that has pervaded all aspects of our council work, and, as in the rest of the country, has seen many of our residents tightening their already tight belts. It has been a year of hard graft both within and without the council, from frontline foodbanks to providing increased housing support and benefits, which pushed our budget to the very limit. We were, frankly, relieved to have a balanced budget this March.

The cost of living crisis, combined with an ever more inept and embarrassing Tory government in Westminster, meant that this May many Tory councillors across the country followed their Worthing colleagues in exiting stage right, with residents exercising their electoral muscle in favour of Labour, Lib Dem and even Green councils. For Labour councils, this has the additional pressure of being a potential portent of things to come in an anticipated 2024 general election. But how to bridge the local conversation of who can run your council services with the national debate on who you should trust to run your country?

My own ward, Marine, was seen as true blue right up to the moment we won our first seat in 2017. It is fairly affluent, and has many residents in the expensive bit nearest the sea who would be pretty stereotypical Tory voters of old: business owning or retired, and generally white, middle class and older, in Worthing to enjoy a quiet life by the coast. The Tories took their postal votes and enjoyed years of success without ever asking their voters how they were getting on.

When we started knocking doors in this Tory stronghold, we found people who had not been listened to in decades. As you might expect, they had a lot to say – most of all that they wanted their town to be taken care of and to be a safe place to live. As the conversations went on, many of them expressed and agreed with the idea that a safe, cared-for town is a place where all members of the community have a warm, decent home; where elderly people can put their heating on without fear of going into arrears on their energy bill; where parents can feed their children decent food, bought from decent wages in a good job; where people of all ages can meet in public spaces that are clean and green and make them proud to call this place home; and where our sea and our air is unpolluted, allowing us to be healthy and our natural environment to thrive. In other words, the Tory voters of old wanted a fair, green town and they were willing to help us to create that.

My experience of the 2017 and 2019 general elections was that these local positive conversations were often undermined by the perceptions of politicians in Westminster. This is not at all surprising given the amount of media coverage that national policy receives and the messages that people digest via their social media feed.

For places such as Worthing, where there are two potentially winnable seats for Labour, the key will be to show up on the doorstep with national policies that we can easily demonstrate will allow our local communities to thrive. From education to health and social care, transport to environment, housing to sport and leisure, our local residents want to know that we understand the cost of living issues that have kicked their feet from under them and that we have a plan to redress the unfairness and the imbalances.

Our voting public are not the 0.1 per cent. They are the people down my road who are looking after their grandchildren while their daughter works two jobs to cover the rent. They are the family across the street who have an Italian mum who is still unsure about her place here after Brexit. They are the retired couple on the seafront, scared of the young people in the hoodies on their street corner (who, as it turns out, have literally nowhere else to go after 8pm on a Friday evening).

National elections can be won by both enabling and building on the work of local politicians to reduce inequalities across our cities, towns and villages. A brave national policy to realise real devolution of power and resources to local structures would allow communities to build trust with local politicians. Making the case that you might elect your MP to make sure your local decision-making bodies have the power and the funding that they need to ensure your hometown is fair and thriving would be a groundbreaking pitch – and a far cry from the political rhetoric of late, where power is concentrated in Westminster and local governments enter a Hunger Games-style tournament for levelling up scraps. There will, of course, be national and global issues that cannot be devolved; but even these will have an impact at the local level – indeed, if an issue did not have an impact at the local level, who would care about it? If we understand this relationship, then we can draw a direct line between ensuring our communities are fair, green and welcoming and the work of our MPs in Westminster addressing issues like immigration or funding public services.

In an election, you are only as good as your candidates, your comms and the team you have on the ground. Local elections are great foundations for building these cornerstones. Local council and community work can also foster the narratives that allow brave, potentially transformative national policy to be translated into living, breathing pragmatism that improves our everyday lives.

Image credit: The wub, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The post Sea change first appeared on Fabian Society.

But over the past decade, a potent new populism has become a force in Western politics. It has been especially noticeable since the referendums on Scottish independence and Brexit and has seen the rise of political ‘outsiders’ such as Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and Jeremy Corbyn.

The common characteristics of the recent resurgence are easily recognised. Understanding how to challenge it is more complicated.

At the centre of the new populism lie the raging ‘culture wars’ between and within political parties, accompanied by a growing authoritarianism. Fake news and obsessive crank conspiracy theories are manufactured about supposed self-interested controlling elites. The furore around ‘15-minute cities’ is one of the latest examples. There is too a rejection of science in areas such as climate change, vaccines and human biology. Experts generally and the ‘mainstream’ independent news media are objects of hostility. ‘Defund the BBC’ is an ongoing campaign.

This breed of identity politics is about inflaming and prolonging divisions rather than bringing people together to solve problems: in essence it means disrupting rather than governing – whatever the cost. Fears and insecurities are exploited and targeted groups are scapegoated. Populists often rewrite history, hankering after ‘golden age’ myths from centuries past. They are usually isolationists – always better apart than together.

Populism creates a climate where antisemitism, misogyny and other prejudices thrive and the threat of political violence festers. The disturbing echoes of the 1930s are obvious. What has helped this toxic culture to spread? Building on 30 years of 24-hour rolling news, over the past decade social media has amplified the ‘trolling’ influence of populists and helped them to network. Dubious ‘news’ sources, some purely online, reinforce prejudices, radicalise and feed polarisation.

Mainstream progressives find ourselves in a culture war against two main sources of this populism – the hard right and the hard left – united in a ‘horseshoe’ alliance against us. Brexit’s ally was ‘Lexit’. Both extremes have their own political correctness and cancel culture, launching ritual ‘pile-ons’ against heretics.

Tories resisting ‘bring back Boris’ and ‘national conservatism’ have recently been on the receiving end. In Labour’s case, it was directed against those who were unconvinced that the cult of Corbyn had solutions for beating austerity.

Fundamentalist cults infiltrate mainstream parties whose values they do not share to drive out non-believers. They seek power, but avoid real responsibility. Rules do not apply to them.

Often presenting themselves as persecuted, voiceless outsiders, once populists assume any position of power, one-way loyalty is demanded – without debate or dissent. We must just ‘respect the mandate’.

Until their revolution arrives, the populist left agitate from the fringes, trying to drag Labour there with them, with empty gestures, platitudes and sanctimonious slogans. Their most significant accomplishment is making it more difficult to keep right-wing populists from power. It is not radical or even progressive for Labour to wallow indulgently in this comfort zone culture of impotence, irrelevance and futile protest.

At best, this populism leads to chaos, recrimination about betrayals and infighting. At worst, corruption proliferates and the pillars upon which our hard-won freedoms stand – democracy, the rule of law and equality before that law – are undermined.

Naturally, these fundamentalists never accept that they have failed because, so they claim, their ideas have never been tried; or they were thwarted by treacherous conspiracy. Defeat is always denied.

Liz Truss recently held the ‘left-wing economic establishment’ and the ‘Whitehall blob’ responsible for her crash. Meanwhile, in 2019, parliamentary Labour party ‘centrists’ and others were blamed for Labour’s worst general election rout since 1935. Any suggestion that, as an overall package, Labour offered a less popular populism than Boris Johnson is dismissed to this day. Apparently, “we won the argument”.

Confronting this toxicity requires more than PR skills. A deeper, broader political response is essential. The starting point for mainstream Labour is to assert who we are and what we believe in. Our party was formed at the beginning of the 20th century to seek majority Labour governments through the extended franchise and parliamentary democracy that our movement’s pioneers fought to establish. The aim was to secure social and economic reforms for the many, unachievable through trade union activism alone – nor by voting Liberal.

We need to talk not only about the Attlee government creating the NHS, but also about Labour’s role in setting up NATO and playing a key part in the cause of freedom before 1945. We should be proud of many aspects of our past, learning from it without living in it.

Labour today is a modernising, progressive and patriotic social democratic party, working to establish our timeless values as the centre ground. At our best, Labour is the party of the active enabling state, of equality through levelling up, of meeting both need and aspiration – and not one at the expense of the other. This means, for example, having equal enthusiasm for expanding home ownership and building new council homes.

As we approach the election, Labour must build confidence that we can deliver our pledges – for example, that local families on council waiting lists will be prioritised for the promised new-build homes.

In government, combating the different varieties of populism will be even more challenging. It will require competence, honesty and transparency about the tough choices we face and clarity about how long progress will take – whether that be training doctors or renovating schools.

Rights and responsibilities must apply throughout society. Labour should exhibit more consistency in our values in areas such as human rights than populists ever could, striving to advance equalities together and not one at the expense of another. Labour must be clear on the limits of the free market and the state. Whether it is banking, consumer protection or migration, markets require regulation.

Fighting populism means a huge reality check. A successful Labour government will not build Utopia, even in 15 years. We will inherit disharmony, dysfunction and decline. The Tories will leave behind a food bank-dependent Britain of debt, squandered potential and broken promises. Generational progress has stalled and life expectancy for the least privileged has worsened since 2010.

Labour will need clear priorities for what needs changing first, both because of the parliamentary time it will take and the taxpayers’ money it will require. After the experience with hunting reform in the early noughties, while not downplaying the need for constitutional modernisation, do we really want a first-term Labour government to get bogged down in issues such as Lords reform or the quest for the perfect electoral system? Not when that government will be judged on getting the basics of normal life working again.

Obtaining an appointment to see a GP or an NHS dentist, reliable train and bus services, affordable utility bills, action against anti-social behaviour, cleaner rivers – these are the sort of everyday life issues on which Labour will be judged. Our reforming fervour must focus on them.

We must confront the harsh economic reality that plans to make the wealthiest pay their fair share will only be enough to kickstart Labour’s first-term investment in the NHS, education and green energy. Going further and turning round the fall in living standards will require a growing, more productive economy with stable low inflation.

This in turn requires every region to contribute more to boosting growth. Transformative Canary Wharf-scale public and private investment must proceed in places like the Humber estuary, whatever happens on regional devolution.

After decades of emphasis on globalisation, we need a focus on national self-sufficiency and resilience in important areas like food, steel, energy and defence. Yet at the same time, trading relationships with the EU must be repaired.

Labour will inherit a stagnant economy of ‘maxed-out’ borrowing, where tax revenues fall short of what is needed to provide a modern welfare state, strong public services and renewed infrastructure. Working families already have the highest overall tax burden since the 1940s. How fairly tax revenue is raised and how effectively it is spent are more relevant to the cause of social justice than the size of the state and public spending.

Investing early to save later, achieving economies of scale and cutting waste will all be key as we relentlessly focus our spending on taking forward Labour’s priorities. To adapt famous words from the Clinton era, to defeat populism it’s not just the economy, stupid. It’s the results too.

Image credit: Photo by Benjamin Elliott on Unsplash

The post A better way first appeared on Fabian Society.

This crisis is overblown. Apart from anything, such discussion obscures the variety of performances across the sector. My agency, Opinium, has been more accurate than most: we correctly predicted that the UK was going to vote Leave in 2016, and called every party’s vote share correctly in the 2019 election apart from the Greens’, which we overstated by 1 per cent. Last year, we also accurately predicted that Liz Truss would storm to victory among Conservative party members, producing a more accurate projection than all our competitors.

There are, though, more fundamental criticisms of polling. For some, the problem with opinion polls is not their accuracy, but rather their impact on our politics. Tony Benn, the veteran left-wing MP, was particularly vocal: “I did not enter the Labour party 47 years ago to have our manifesto written by Dr Mori, Dr Gallup and Mr Harris.”

In response to such criticisms, we must remember what polling is for. It is not solely about how people will vote in a general election. Such research is important, but most of the work we do is about trying to understand the problems people are facing, the causes of those issues, their barriers to success, and what can be done so that everyone’s life can be happier and more fulfilled.

An early example of this type of work was conducted at the turn of the 20th century by Seebohm Rowntree, founder of the York branch of the Fabian Society. After visiting every working-class household in York, his findings showed that more than a quarter of families were living in poverty, mostly caused by structural factors such as low wages and insecure work. This challenged the widely held view at the time that the poor were responsible for their own plight.

The methodologies we use have changed dramatically since then, but our aim remains the same: to better understand the country we live in. This often involves challenging the misconceptions of those in power and listening to the voices of those who are frequently ignored. Of course, we should also be trying to make those in power more representative of the country, so that a wider range of voices feed directly into our decision-making process. But the complexities of a diverse country like the UK will never be fully captured by 650 parliamentarians.

How many MPs, for example, are private tenants? Last year, I worked with the Renters Reform Coalition on a project to better understand the issues renters face in the private sector. It showed the negative impacts that low quality housing and rising rents was having on tenants’ quality of life, as well as wide support for a range of pro-tenant policies. Or consider Opinium’s annual Multicultural Britain survey, which seeks to better understand the views and life experiences of minority ethnic Britons.

Of course, politics isn’t about documenting people’s problems, but about fixing them. It is here that Tony Benn might have more of a point. Henry Ford, when asked about the development of his namesake car, quipped: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” People know the issues they face, but they do not necessarily know what the best solutions are. Most do not have the time – or indeed the will – to become experts in all areas of policy.

This is why political parties will always have a leadership role in developing well-thought-out, innovative policy solutions. For example, take the minimum wage, now an accepted part of UK labour policy. If you had asked voters in 1990 how low pay could be addressed, few would have suggested a pay floor. It took years of campaigning – first under Neil Kinnock, but especially during the Blair leadership – to cement the minimum wage as a sensible policy in the public consciousness.

The left must remember, though, that even here polling has a role to play: finding the most effective way to promote solutions to voters. The right employs polls and focus groups to sell ideas that divide and hold back our country; it would be a dereliction of duty for us not to use these same techniques to promote policies that unite Britain and take our country forward.

As a social democrat, I have dedicated my career to providing accurate data on what the country thinks, feels, and does. In the fight to change this country for the better, we need not fear Mr Harris and Dr Mori – quite the opposite; social research and opinion polls are some of the best tools we have to ensure that our policy platform addresses the most pressing issues in people’s lives.

Image credit: Rwendland, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The post The voice of the people first appeared on Fabian Society.

While some companies have made great strides, others have been too slow, or are altogether unwilling to adopt measures that will get us closer to fairness. Which is why new legislation requiring EU companies to disclose salary information and gender pay gaps is being warmly welcomed amongst DE&I practitioners and progressive business leaders alike as good example for us in the UK.

On 30 March, the European Parliament adopted the pay transparency directive. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Well, these measures seek to expose – and in doing so close – gender pay gaps, by requiring much greater transparency. Employees will gain access to the information they need in order to establish whether they are being paid fairly, and mechanisms will be put in place that push companies to close any gaps.

Women in the EU earn, on average, 13 per cent less than men for doing the same job. Under the new legislation, companies with over 100 employees will also have to report their gender pay gap, every three years (in the UK, only companies with more than 250 staff are required to do so). And they will have to act if their gender pay gap is more than 5 per cent or face penalties, including fines. The fines are one thing, but the reputational risk this carries will be far more damaging in the long run.

Knowledge is power, and, crucially, the legislation puts an end to secrecy. Workers will have the right to know the pay rate for their category of work. And there can be no contractual terms that restrict people from disclosing their salary. For the first time, intersectional discrimination and the rights of non-binary individuals will fall into scope. In addition to gender equality, companies will also have to strive for workplace DE&I policies. These new obligations all fit into a larger framework.

The burden of proof now shifts from the employee to the employer in a measurable and sustainable way. If a company fails to meet its transparency obligations, it will be down to them, not the employee, to prove there has been no wage discrimination. It’s no silver bullet: work culture still has a pivotal role to play in delivering fairness. But transparency and reversing the burden of proof will go a long way towards closing persistent gaps.

In the UK, eight out of ten UK employers still pay men more than women, with banking and finance amongst the worst offenders. Despite efforts to narrow it, including mandatory gender pay gap reporting since 2017 in the UK, the dial is just not shifting. Certainly not at the pace that will deliver meaningful progress in our lifetimes.

The resilience of pay gaps is the result of many features of the labour market, some of which are not necessarily obvious. While being asked to provide a salary history makes everyone less confident when negotiating pay, for women and other groups who are systematically paid less, it propagates existing inequalities. Recruiting managers may pat themselves on the back for striking a ‘good deal’, but all they are effectively doing is maintaining those pay gaps.

In the UK we could also benefit from greater transparency – that ‘sunlight disinfectant’. Last year, the minister for women, Baroness Stedman-Scott, launched a series of initiatives to level up employment opportunities for women. One of those (pilot) initiatives is aimed at improving transparency during the application process. By listing salary range on job adverts, the hope is that this will provide women with a firmer footing to negotiate pay.

Race and ethnicity are also important factors. While all women of colour earn consistently less per hour than white British men, the gap can be as high as 28 per cent for Pakistani women. That is an eye-watering differential.

And ethnic minority candidates still have to send 60 per cent more applications to receive as many call-backs as white British people. So it’s not just pay, but opportunity gaps that need fixing.

What is still left out of the equation is the mandatory reporting of pay gaps related to ethnicity and other key characteristics. Despite the lobbying for mandatory ethnicity pay reporting after the Women and Equalities Committee report on the topic in early 2022, the current Conservative government does not plan to legislate. What is more, while socio-economic background is not a protected characteristic, it too has a significant impact on opportunities and career progression.

It’s also worth remembering that gender pay gaps are averages, unevenly spread. They are not necessarily a major consideration for young workers – rather, it is amongst older employees that we see the biggest pay divides. While ageism impacts everyone, for women and other groups that face structural barriers in the workplace, age represents an accumulation of disadvantage.

With a lot of noise in the British press around coaxing over-50s back into employment, ageism – an oft-neglected aspect of DE&I – is receiving growing attention. The House of Lords committee found that a significant number of professionals over 50 have not returned to the workforce since the pandemic, causing a major labour shortage. But here is the rub: not all will require ‘coaxing off the golf course’. Many employers are still reluctant to employ older workers. In fast growth and hugely profitable sectors like tech, ageism is rampant. And such sectors are where tomorrow’s jobs lie.

With a rapidly ageing population across Britain and the EU, this is, I believe, where legislation could be tightened next. We may well see more ‘sticks’ in future.

If we’re out of carrots, the last resort may well be legislation – but one that goes beyond mandatory gender pay gap reporting to capture other characteristics, such as ethnicity and socio-economic background. And since mandatory reporting alone is not delivering the pace of change we need, we should legislate for greater transparency around salaries – listing a range on job ads, and discouraging questions about salary history. It’s a thorny issue, as not everything is about money and the third sector may struggle to compete – but this is not about all things being equal. It is about fair access to opportunities, and ensuring people are not paid differently for doing the same job.

Labour should certainly watch closely as the EU legislation feeds through and use it as a ‘test case’ in deciding where to steer next.

Image credit: Suicasmo, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The post Forcing the hand of fairness first appeared on Fabian Society.