The government’s inheritance after 14 years of decline –decimated public services, economic stagnation, declining living standards and life chances, and the weakening of our social contract across the country – means the government’s bandwidth will be stretched like never before. Long-term strategy that sets our country on the right course must be fused with demonstrable delivery to keep trust and fend off populism from left and right. As local leaders, the ability to marshal a long-term plan to rebuild a city’s economy, create jobs and homes, and tackle poverty, while at the same time contending with the practical and often literal pavement politics of fly tipping and potholes, is our daily reality.

Crucially, though, how you explain your purpose and achievements matters. Take economic growth, for example. Manchester’s story is often cited: a declining post-industrial city has, over the last decade, transformed into the fastest growing city in the UK, with an average growth rate of 3.1 per cent; flourishing life sciences, professional and financial services sectors, and thriving digital, tech, and advanced material industries. Over the course of 20 years, the skills base underwent a seismic shift, from 25 per cent of all working age adults having no formal skills or qualifications to less than 6 per cent. Yet we still face some of the highest levels of child poverty in the country: an important lesson in the impossibility of separating economic and social policy.

An economic journey two decades in the making, supercharged through devolution, maintained broad electoral support throughout (Manchester Labour holds87 of 96 seats on Manchester City Council). Not because we promised economic growth, but because we harnessed civic pride and focused on the practical benefits of growth– better jobs and more opportunities for children, good homes, more money for local services and clean, green and thriving neighbourhoods. Hope for tomorrow, with incremental progress today.

People’s perceptions of success are shaped when they step outside their front door. Is there a vibrant local high street and high quality local services, parks, roads, and public transport? Do they feel safe? Is there enough for their children to do? In other words, people ask themselves: is my local area on the up, or does it feel in decline?

In local government, we are challenged with demonstrating the great strides a Labour government is making to improve everyday life. We are rising to the challenge. After the decimation of local government since 2010, when Labour councils – especially northern towns and cities with high poverty rates – were worst hit, it will take a long rebuild to address the current £6bn blackhole. It is not only about local government funding. The previous government’s refusal to grip social care, the spiralling chaos in the special educational needs (SEND) system, and the housing crisis that sees councils in London spend £4m per day on temporary accommodation left us all exposed.

That’s why it was so important to see the start of a local government rebuild in the government’s spending review and subsequent fair funding consultation. It is heartening to see commitments to tackle the crisis of social care and SEND, and the £39bn affordable homes programme – the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in50 years – will facilitate growth and tackle rises in homelessness in the process. The transformation of the household support fund into a multi-year crisis and resilience fund; free school meals for over 500,000 more children; new funding to increase the supply of good-quality temporary accommodation; and the extension of the warm homes plan will have an immediate impact in terms of poverty reduction. The industrial strategy, infrastructure strategy and transport investment are much needed tools for local leaders like me to create stronger local economies.

To radically improve our neighbourhoods, towns and cities means putting place first, and a reset relationship between national and local, recognising that mayoral combined authorities must be underpinned by well resourced, capable local councils to succeed. Change will require a reformed Whitehall view of how silos come together in place, and a new level of trust and accountability to deliver placed on our shoulders.

Turning combined authorities into ‘mini-Whitehalls’ won’t work. We must focus on delivering change locally, improving neighbourhoods, building homes, and fostering strong local economies – practical, everyday change on your doorstep. Labour councils are desperate to deliver that change as equal partners – not just to win elections, but to change lives.

Image credit: barnyz via flickr

The post Road to recovery first appeared on Fabian Society.

• New Fabian Society report calls for children in working families and families with a disabled child to be exempted from the two-child limit, and for new Universal Credit payments for families with under-fives.
• These Fabian Society proposals would lift 20 per cent of children under five currently living in poverty out of it. It would also lift over 500,000 children of all ages out of poverty.
• Fabian Society-YouGov polling shows proposals to scrap the two-child limit for working families and families with a disabled child are supported by the public.

The Fabian Society today releases research that calls for new Universal Credit payments to tackle poverty for children under five.

The report, First Steps – An ambitious strategy to tackle early years poverty with public consent,

recommends several measures for the 2025 Budget, including scrapping the two-child limit for working families, and families with a disabled child, as first steps towards an ambitious overall strategy to end child poverty.

The report shows that more than a third of under-fives in England and Wales live in poverty. This is the highest poverty rate of any age group.

Evidence shows that this has lifelong consequences. The report argues that the government should focus its Child Poverty Strategy on the early years, as this will have the most significant impact on health and wellbeing, school readiness, and long-term economic outcomes. Without tackling early years poverty, the government will struggle to achieve its missions on health, opportunity, and living standards.

Inadequate social security is the major cause of this poverty, including the two-child limit for Universal Credit. Therefore, a significant and sustained fall in early years poverty can only be delivered through increases in social security, the report argues.

The report recommends that the two-child limit should be completely scrapped as soon as possible. It also recommends the introduction of a ‘baby’ and a ‘toddler’ element within Universal Credit to provide additional support to families with young children.

Public opinion is against scrapping the two-child limit completely and doing so immediately risks undermining the case for social security spending, the report argues. According to polling conducted by YouGov for the report, when asked about the two-child limit, 59 per cent of respondents said ‘the two-child limit should be kept’ – compared to 25 per cent who said ‘the two-child limit should be removed’.

This is why the paper proposes a two-step approach to scrap the two-child limit, that would benefit the vast majority of children affected by the limit immediately and build support towards scrapping the limit altogether. This first step would benefit nearly nine out of ten children under five (89 per cent) currently hit by the two-child limit, but would be far more popular than scrapping it completely in one big step, and more popular and effective than raising the cap to three children.

Combined with baby and toddler elements, the first step to scrap the two-child limit could result in one of the largest falls in early years poverty since the 1990s – lifting 230,000 children under five out poverty.

When the Fabian Society and YouGov polled different ‘first steps’ to fully scrap the two-child limit, it found public support for the report’s recommendations:

• 46 per cent supported ‘removing the two-child limit for families with disabled children’ – with 34 per cent opposing it.
• 45 per cent supported ‘removing the two-child limit for families who are in work’ – with 35 per cent opposing it.
• 32 per cent supported ‘lifting the limit from two children to three children’ – with 51 per cent opposing it.

Ben Cooper, Fabian Society Research Manager, and author of the report said:

“While the public finances are incredibly tight, the government can act to transform the lives of babies and toddlers living in poverty – and do so with public support.

“The government should exempt families in work and families with disabled children from the two-child limit. This would be part of a two-step plan to scrap the limit entirely.

“Public opposition to scrapping the two-child limit immediately is strong, but the public would support policies to exempt most children from the limit. This includes those who voted Labour in 2024, but who are looking to other political parties – including both the Greens and Reform. This measure can start to rebuild Labour’s fractured electoral coalition, while achieving the kind of change Labour was elected to deliver.

“Combined with new financial support for all families with children under five, the government would lift hundreds of thousands of babies and toddlers out of poverty. And it could do so without undermining public support for further action to tackle child poverty before the next election.”

ENDS

Notes

1. Contact: Emma Burnell, Media Consultant, Fabian Society burnell@fabians.org.uk or 07851 941111.
2. First Steps – An ambitious strategy to tackle early years poverty with public consent is published by the Fabian Society. It was edited by Iggy Wood.
3. Early years poverty is defined as a child under the age of five living in a household with an income less than 60 per cent of the median.
4. The Fabian Society commissioned YouGov Plc to survey 4,300 adults across Great Britain. The survey was carried out online. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18 and 20 February 2025.The figures have been weighted and are representative of all adults (aged 18+) in Great Britain.
5. The Fabian Society commissioned Howard Reed at Landman Economics to model a series of policy options, focused on its impact on child poverty rates and their cost. The results use the Family Resources Survey 2022 – 2023, adjusted to take account of income and housing costs growth since the data was collected. All the costings are in today’s prices, and reflect the cost if they were implemented this year. All results are for England and Wales only.
6. The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank. Founded in 1884, the society is at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left. The society is alone among think tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation, with around 7,000 members. It is constitutionally affiliated to the Labour party.

The post New Universal Credit reforms could lift 230,000 children under five out of poverty first appeared on Fabian Society.

It’s no surprise that he’s spending time thinking about international relations at the moment; his role as chair of the business and trade select committee puts him right on the frontlines of the brewing trade war. What will such a dramatic shift in US foreign policy mean for the world?

“Kindleberger basically argues that you can’t build an effective peace without a hegemon,” Byrne says. (A hegemon, in this context, means a state with a preponderance of influence and power.)

“But Robert Keohane [another scholar of international relations] says, actually… you can have harmony after the hegemon has left.

“He says you’ve got to look at the demand side for stability. And right now, the demand side for stability includes us, the European Union, Japan, Australia, Canada, the Gulf, India. Actually, there are a lot of people who need safeguards against anarchy and a multilateral system that checks the power of China and re-contains Russia.

“What you’re seeing now is the hegemon retreat, and the United Kingdom has to lead this push for harmony [now that] the hegemon has left. And the lesson of Robert Keohane is that this is perfectly possible, and we should be optimistic and bold about it and lean into it.”

After weathering one of the more heinous stitch-ups in British politics – David Laws, his successor as chief secretary to the Treasury, publicised the traditional tongue-in-cheek note Byrne left, which infamously read ‘there’s no money’ – Byrne is now enjoying a much more  positive kind of prominence. His book, The Inequality of Wealth, has been republished in paperback. And his select committee role has seen clips of him dressing down representatives of companies like Amazon, Ticketmaster and Shein rack up views on YouTube and TikTok.

It sounds, then, like Byrne believes we can have pax americana without americana? “Pax post-Americana,” he says. So he doesn’t think we can rely on the US returning to the fold in four years’ time?

“Definitely not. The United States has now become a profoundly polarised society.

“There was someone at the European Commission who said this to me last year. He said: ‘look, even if President Biden wins again, it’ll be a truce. But not peace.’ Americais now such a divided country that I think it is going to be really difficult for them to lead the world in the way that they have for most of the years since the since 1944, and so we need a degree of what the Europeans call strategic autonomy.”

This analysis, of course, assumes that we aren’t headed in the same direction as the US. Does Byrne think we are any safer from a Musk-style coup?

“I do, because I think our institutions are stronger and older than the Americans’.

“But I do think that there is a lot of complacency about the ceiling on Reform. There [is a] widely held view that it would be really difficult for Reform to go beyond 25 percent. I think that’s wrong.

“Unless Labour really strengthens its appeal to the working class, there is a risk that bigger numbers of the working class leave us. That’s why the Employment Rights Bill was so important.

“Angela Rayner, I think, is doing such a terrific job at driving and articulating that kind of argument. And Keir has actually been very effective at communicating about this, and the realities of his childhood.

“We just need a lot more of that, because what I’ve come to learn in politics is that people need to understand your motives more than your plans.”

Not that Byrne is short of plans. His book, The Inequality of Wealth, floats a range of policies – many quite radical – to address the uneven distribution of resources that he argues is the source of many of our problems.

“I’m absolutely convinced that wealth inequality is the rocket fuel for populism, and you can see around the world voters who have had a really challenging time for the last 10 to 20 years. They’re now looking at the future and feeling really pessimistic. And [a] combination of pessimism and impatience makes people feel, look, I’ve just got to press the reset button.”

“And so unless progressive parties can really understand that we have got to help people – [that] we’ve got to democratise wealth creation…[then] people are going to continue to vote for radical alternatives. Now I’ve set out in the book lots of ways in which we can do that in a practical way. But unless we clock this reality, we will keep losing to populists.”

Byrne takes it for granted that populism is something we have to defeat. But how far from populism is his own agenda? If I told you it was Zarah Sultana who’d written a book setting out the case for a wealth tax, a sovereign wealth fund, and universal basic capital – which, in its most radical form, might involve giving £10,000 to every 25-year-old – you’d probably believe me. Of course, if it was her name on the cover, it wouldn’t sport glowing testimonials from Ed Balls and Matthew D’Ancona. Why? Is the difference merely aesthetic – a divergence of style rather than substance?

“It actually goes back to an old idea pioneered by Roy Jenkins all those years ago, which was the notion of the radical centre. And at the beginnings of the New Labour era… we were passionate about this notion of a radical centre. The idea that you could be realistic about money, but radical about power was an idea that we thought was right.

“But times change. And so what the radical centre means today is something different to the New Labour days. What I think you’ve got now is a wide sense that the top 0.1 per cent’s fortunes have just soared, [and] corporate power has concentrated, and this means that the options and freedoms that ordinary people have to earn a good life are much more limited.”

Which still sounds pretty populist to me. When he was going round the Rolls-Royce showroom and the Monaco yacht show, did Byrne ever experience the populist urge –a little bit of righteous anger?

“Yeah, because when you’re looking at how a superyacht is made, a million person-hours of work goes into it – a million.

“And they are engineering masterpieces. So the reality is, you’re slightly in awe of what you’re seeing.

“But then you just think, how on earth is the ingenuity of so many people going into pleasing the proclivities of tiny number of very rich people? Surely that is wrong. Surely something is malfunctioning in our society, where the genius of so many is basically at the service of the absurdity of affluence.

“And so, yes – when you work in a constituency like mine, where your food banks keep running out of food, and then you go and see a million person-hours being poured into creating a superyacht, you just think: how on earth have we allowed our society to go so badly wrong?”

An even starker contrast with the opulence Byrne saw during his excursion into the lives of the super-wealthy was his experience working with homeless people. It is something he frequently brings up, both in interviews and in writing; did it have a profound effect on him?

“Yeah, it did. After my dad died in 2015 after what was a lifelong struggle with alcohol, I was in quite a state. I’d become profoundly affected by the level of homelessness in Birmingham. I spent a lot of time talking to homeless people about their journeys, and the thing that their stories always came back to is that there had been a twist of fate that had knocked them down.

“And my dad was hit by a twist of fate: he lost my mum when she was 52 to pancreatic cancer. But as a family, we’d done our best to catch him. The people I met sleeping on the streets of Birmingham didn’t have nets to catch them. I found that really distressing.

“I think the political lesson that it really helped me see is that… it’s only through collective action that you can build security for each and every one of us in a world where we get knocked down often in life.”

For Byrne, liberty in the broadest sense is a central concern, as outlined in his 2022 Fabian pamphlet, Reclaiming Freedom.

“How much freedom is there for someone who is sleeping rough on the streets of Birmingham? Zero. Literally zero. They are trapped in a tyranny of poverty, and the only way that you can help people out of that kind of tyranny is by joining arms and lifting people up. And that’s something that we do together.”

Such idealism is refreshing at a time when Labour ministers are trailing what looks very much like a return to austerity. I get the sense that Byrne, who would once have been considered an arch-New Labourite, might now find himself closer to the centre, or even the centre-left, of the party. I’m interested to know what he thinks about the direction of travel. Surely, we can’t cut our way to prosperity, I say – so why is that the message coming from the government?

“I think the messaging coming out of government [needs to be] a lot clearer about what it is we’re trying to do. And that’s not a novel critique – that’s something that’s kind of widely felt in the parliamentary Labour party.

“What we’re trying to do is to help people earn a better life, because we want them to have far greater control overt heir life, their options. We want to give people agency and freedoms that they don’t have today.

“And there’s a really interesting new book that’s coming out by Ezra Klein.” (He’s talking about Abundance, which has since been published.) “The argument he’s making is that, actually, there are all kinds of options that are opening up ahead of us.

“If you think about the revolution underway now in genetic medicine or green energy, global gigabit connectivity, the rise of the global middle class, the next few years could be extraordinary.

“When Kristalina Georgieva [the head of the IMF] did her keynote speech in Cambridge last year, she made the point that living standards could multiply 13-fold over the course of the next century.”

This sanguine vision strikes me as an implied criticism of our more-grey-than-red administration, although Byrne doesn’t necessarily see it that way. He is keen to point out that The Inequality of Wealth was “deliberately written as a two-term project”.

He hasn’t let go of all his New Labour instincts, either: in true Blairite fashion, his book includes the results of specially-commissioned opinion polling on the policies he floats. Taken together with previous research, it paints a striking picture: British voters are pretty radical. It seems there is broad support, for example, for a wealth tax targeting the rich. Does Labour perhaps need to have a bit more faith in the public?

“I think two things here. There are 10 different permutations of [a wealth tax], everything from taxes on net household wealth, to capital gains tax equalisation, through to National Insurance contributions on investment income.

“And my first bit of advice is, stop talking about a wealth tax. We’ve got to get into the specifics of what kind of tax where we’re talking about.

“I think the second point is that we have definitely got to take the public on a journey with this.”

But do we need to take the public on a journey? Aren’t they already there?

“So, I would say probably they are, but I think you’ve got to pressure-test this argument with the public. It now really needs stress-testing. And I think there’s a number of organizations that are going to do that work this year.”

I suspect Byrne might be being overly cautious. There’s an odd reluctance within Labour circles to accept that voters share our values, even where there’s good evidence that they do. Yet at least Byrne is willing to think outside the box first and ask the public what they think second. This seems more logical than taking for granted, as the party’s strategists often seem to do, that the average British voter is irretrievably right-wing.

Byrne has already mentioned that he’s embarking on his own project on populism. What will this look like?

“Bits of it are secret at the moment,” he says. “But basically, there’s a number of us who have come together to run a big project on the causes of populism.

“We’re basically trying to map what I call authopop – authoritarian populism – [which] is quite a weird combination of traditional and techno- libertarianism, authoritarianism, and plutocracy.”

Byrne highlights Peter Thiel, the billionaire founder of PayPal and Palantir, and vice-president JD Vance, Thiel’s former employee, as key drivers of this syncretic project. He also draws attention to the writing of Curtis Yarvin, otherwise known as Mencius Moldbug, a far-right, neo-monarchist blogger who Vance has publicly cited. “They’ve got a couple of things that they really major on – extreme free speech, extreme privacy, an obsession with cryptocurrency – but they’re also quite autocratic,” Byrne says.

“They hate democracy, and they’re all for plutocracy, because they basically want to shut down the state and stop paying tax.”

The influence of science fiction is evident, Byrne says. “Look at the two books that are particularly influential in this community – Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and Neil Stevenson’s Snow Crash.

“[The latter] is the book that pioneered the idea of the metaverse, but if you kind of combine Neil Stevenson and Ayn Rand, what you get is the kleptoverse – this world where might makes right, where you’ve got extreme inequality, and where you’ve got a kind of a breakdown of society as we understand it today.”

So these alt-right kingmakers read Snow Crash, a dystopian novel, and thought: ‘that sounds great’?

“Yeah, exactly.” He chuckles. “It’s basically a philosophy that is written by, and appeals to, boys who spend too long in their bedrooms. It’s a strange philosophy, but it’s potent, and it’s real, and the vice president of the United States is amongst its chief cheerleaders. So it needs to be taken seriously.”

Exiting Byrne’s office is a shock. Across Parliament Square, an off-kilter rendition of Sandstorm by Darude, played on the horn of a protesting tractor, jolts me back to dismal March 2025. At least someone in Westminster still has hope. I pray it’s infectious.

Image credit: Liam Bryne via flickr

The post Absolutely positive first appeared on Fabian Society.

It is typical of her approach to politics to go and see first-hand the conditions in the makeshift shelters of the underground. In her own words: “Night after night, just before the sirens sounded, thousands trooped down in orderly fashion into the nearest underground station, taking their bedding with them, flasks of hot tea, snacks, radios, packs of cards and magazines. Without it, London life could not have carried on in the way it did.”

Councillor Betts is now better known as that true giant of the post-war parliamentary Labour party: Barbara Castle, the MP for Blackburn, one of the finest government ministers this nation has ever seen.

From her very first frontbench role as minister for transport in the new Wilson government, Castle made an impact. It is not an exaggeration to state that she may have saved what was left of the nation’s railways in the wake of the ‘Beeching Axe’ recommended by Dr Richard Beeching in the early 1960s. Much of the damage could not be halted – it is always difficult to reverse an avalanche in mid flow, especially when most of the civil servants, advisors and British Rail board think it a splendid idea. As in north London in 1940, however, Castle was deter- mined to find out for herself the conditions in the field. On a railway tour in north Wales, Castle turned to British Railway manager George Dow and exclaimed: “I can’t close them! Can you make it work?”

The seminal Transport Act of October 1968 offered a lifeline to the surviving branches. Very much the work of Castle, it acknowledged the existence of what was becoming known as the ‘social railway’ – loss-making branch lines that nevertheless provided social value, and which would require government subsidy to survive. Without Castle, there would be no trains to beautiful Looe in Cornwall; nor to faraway Mallaig on the romantic windswept coast of the West Highlands. In the latter case, Harry Potter would never have got to arrive at wizard school without Castle – the famed Hogwarts Express was filmed on this magnificent line. Today’s packed trains, including a regular steam powered service from Fort William, bear testimony to Castle’s wisdom and foresight. More broadly, by establishing regional passenger transport executives to help foster bus and train coordination, Castle had shown there was a real alternative to the car and that rail, buses and an extended underground network in London were worth the financial support required from central government.

Castle’s tenure also saw – despite green-inked death threats from motorists – the introduction of both the breathalyser and a permanent national speed limit of 70mph.

Castle was the first transport minister to fully grasp the implications of the Keynes-inspired concept of ‘cost benefit analysis,’ which could reveal the utility of projects that on a simple profit-and-loss basis would not be normally constructed. Against the backdrop of a looming devaluation crisis, in August 1967 she explained her thinking about the Victoria line to Brixton: “It will actually cost the board money. I have decided that the benefit of the line to the public, not least in relieving the congested conditions in which many of them have to travel, will outweigh any accounting loss. So I have given the go ahead.” Castle would push hard in Harold Wilson’s Cabinet and in debates for the ‘Fleet’ – later Jubilee – line to Charing Cross. Thirty years ahead of her time, she became an advocate for a congestion charge for London which could be then used to help subsidise the underground.

In sharp contrast to London Transport’s relatively enlightened policies stood the large parts of British Rail where there existed longstanding race bars, designed to prevent the recruitment of black and Asian members of staff. The situation came to a head in a landmark court case, the first successful prosecution under the Race Relations Act of 1965. Xavier Asquith was an experienced and exemplary employee, who, when applying for another guard position at Euston, was abruptly turned down. When he questioned the decision, he faced intimidation and even death threats. A furious Barbara Castle personally descended on Euston to force the British Rail board to end the now-illegal practice on the 15 July 1966.

Ulla Lindstrom, Sucheta Kripalani, Barbara Castle, Cairine Wilson, and Eleanor Roosevelt (1949)

Castle’s tenure also saw – despite green-inked death threats from motorists – the introduction of both the breathalyser and a permanent national speed limit of 70mph. These policies alone have almost certainly saved countless lives since.

The Ministry of Transport had been a considerable challenge to sort out, a potentially poisoned chalice which she had handled with élan. Castle would need all of her considerable skill for her next mission as Secretary of State for Employment from April 1968. Wilson knew that the issue of industrial relations could make or break Labour governments. In particular, wildcat strikes, decisions taken with shows of hands rather than ballots, and openly communist leadership made trade unions, at times, the Achilles’ heel of the whole Labour movement and a gift to Conservative Central Office. Given her recent performance at the Ministry of Transport and her leftwing Bevanite credentials, Wilson, in secret talks with Castle, asked the new minister to draw up a White Paper to introduce what in hindsight seem an entirely sensible and reasonable set of proposals for reform. Delivered in January 1969, Castle proposed to force unions to call a ballot before a strike was held, along with the establishment of an Industrial Board to enforce settlements in industrial disputes. Famously titled In Place of Strife, her seminal work met with howls of protest from the so-called ‘brothers’, led by the Home Secretary, James Callaghan, and rising Labour stars including a young Neil Kinnock. (This proved to be a great irony, as both of their later careers would come to be defined by disastrous industrial action called without genuine ballots.)The defeat of Castle’s reforms laid the groundwork for the destruction of trade union power under successive Conservative administrations, leaving millions of workers vulnerable to unscrupulous employers, a situation that the new Starmer government will seek to belatedly remedy. Perhaps it would have been better for workers, and the country as a whole, if Labour had listened to Barbara in the first place?

Castle’s time back in the cabinet was to prove brief, with her nemesis in a still-resentful James Callaghan summarily sacking her on assuming the top job in April 1976. Callaghan claimed he wanted someone younger, and then promptly appointed an older male

Although Wilson was having to juggle a cabinet full of resentful Gaitskellites, many of whom would later leave to form the SDP, in hindsight, Castle had been badly let down, and Labour had just scored its greatest own goal of the post-war period. Though bruised, Castle would still secure the Equal Pay Act of 1970, enshrining equal pay, in theory at least, for working women.

With Labour unexpectedly returned to power in the two general elections of February and October 1974, Castle became Secretary of State for Health and Social Services. Another difficult portfolio even at the best of times, she managed to get through a series of radical reforms despite the party’s wafer-thin majority. These included such landmarks as Mobility Allowances and Invalid Care Allowance for single women and those who care full time for disabled relatives. Further, there were significant reforms to child benefits in the seminal Child Benefit Act of 1976, which ensured the firstborn child was included in addition to subsequent offspring, while significantly payments were to be made directly to mothers, not fathers. (Castle had remembered the sage advice of that other extraordinary Labour woman, Liverpudlian Bessie Braddock, the MP for Liverpool Exchange, who had warned that all too often it was the local pub landlord, not hungry children, who benefited from family allowances if they were paid to the man in the house.) Naturally, the last measure was fiercely opposed by male-dominated trade unions. In another significant change, benefit rises were linked to individual earnings rather than prices.

Perhaps Castle’s finest achievement was the monumental Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Again hated by the unreconstructed, for the first time in British history, it enshrined the principle that women were equal in the workplace and would no longer be treated as semi-formed citizens liable to be discriminated against on grounds of sex or marital status. Though there is still a long way to go, especially with regard to pay disparities and promotion, the legislation had teeth in the form of the creation of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). However, Castle’s time back in the cabinet was to prove brief, with her nemesis in a still-resentful James Callaghan summarily sacking her on assuming the top job in April 1976. Callaghan claimed he wanted someone younger, and then promptly appointed an older male minister in David Ennals MP. Not a good look, and hardly in keeping with the spirit of Castle’s act of the previous year.

What were the keys to Castle’s success? First, she knew how to talk to people, from permanent secretaries to the doorman and charlady.

To survey the battering she had to endure in the press throughout her time in office is to find a torrent of blatant misogyny, along with sly comments about her ‘fiery’ nature, striking red hair and taste for well-cut expensive French styling. No male minister would ever have to put up with this, though few could match her ability, common sense, decency and – all-too rare among Wilson’s front- bench – sobriety. There is much that today’s female frontbench would no doubt recognise; a different set of rules, under which a single hair out of place or smudged lipstick is immediately leapt on by the media.

Even in Castle’s retirement, a Labour grandee found time to describe this genuine giant of British politics as obsessing over her personal appearance. The comments have not worn well. The proof is in the eating, as it were, and her record transformation is still firmly in place, helping to define modern Britain in a way very few post-war politicians of either hue can claim.

What were the keys to Castle’s success? First, she knew how to talk to people, from permanent secretaries to the doorman and charlady. No minister benefits when people are too uncomfortable or frightened to speak truth to power. People came to trust Castle and had her back.

Second, she understood the importance of going out and talking to the people on the ground. For example, Castle famously invited a delegation of 186 female car-seat machinists from Ford Dagenham to come and explain how she could help them in their claim for equal conditions to the men. The end result was the aforementioned Equal Pay Act of 1970. Labour’s recent approach to policy formulation has similarly sought to escape the Westminster and Whitehall bubble, and find out what people actually want. It works.

Castle meets John Tembo, Malawian Minister of Finance while serving as British Minister of Overseas Development. Image credit: National Archives of Malawi, CC BY-SA 4.0

Third, her attention to detail when framing legislation. The cobbled-together legislation of the last 14 years shows what happens when this is not an absolute priority. In contrast, Castle’s attention to detail meant little further legislation was subsequently required to plug unforeseen gaps. The legislation establishing the concept of the social railway is a good example of this, along with paying child benefits directly to mothers.

Fourth, her ability to get to the heart of the matter. Sometimes the problem is not what it seems. Castle was right to question the assumption that all British Rail managers were hell-bent on closing loss- making lines as claimed by Treasury mandarins. Today, though the dire service and financially extractive practices of private train operating companies hit the headlines, the more intractable problem may well be an industry which is all too often inward looking, backslapping and dominated by Network Rail. No doubt the formidable Louise Haigh, who has so owned the transport brief in opposition, will know how best to prise Network Rail’s dead hands off the controls of a new state-owned Great British Railways.

Castle was a precursor to today’s notably powerful government frontbench female phalanx of Cooper, Dodds, Haigh, Mahmood, Nandy, Phillipson, Powell, Rayner, Reeves, Reeves, and Stevens. They are at the heart of a Labour party back in power where it belongs, escaping the dire fate of being relegated to the status of a narcissistic, shouty and above all ineffective pressure group. Castle, no doubt, would thoroughly approve of their determination to change Britain for the better – as she did.

Featured image credit: Communauté Européenne

The post A great example first appeared on Fabian Society.

by Tracy Brabin

Labour’s devolution plans will lead to a fundamental rewiring of England’s political system

When Keir Starmer talks about “fixing the foundations” of our country, he means it.

Just one week after his election, our new prime minister invited the country’s 12 metro mayors to Downing Street. He knows that to achieve his mission of the highest sustained growth in the G7, he must re-empower the regions of England to deliver it.

This means an English Devolution bill, spreading power and opportunity to every community; single funding settlements, with greater freedoms and flexibilities over local growth funding; and a Council of Nations and Regions, so that the local leaders who know their areas best can take a seat at the national decision-making table.

Taken together, these three initiatives will be gamechangers for the UK economy. Never before has central government looked so closely to its regional partners to help it shape and realise its vision for the country.

Since 1999, devolution has rapidly transformed the way our political systems work in the UK. Ordinary people have been brought closer to the decisions which affect their lives. But the arguments for deeper and wider devolution aren’t just political; they’re economic.

According to the Institute for Government, decisions taken outside of Westminster and Whitehall lead to better outcomes and greater returns on investment.

Yet the full potential of English devolution has been held back by an outdated political system which bakes in the neglect of villages, towns and cities outside of the M25. Our country is simply too centralised to harness the opportunities and tackle the challenges facing each of our regions. From our transport networks to our housing stock, Britain’s infrastructure is creaking under the weight of over a decade of underinvestment.

But devolution can and will be the green shoot of hope. Whichever of the government’s missions you look at – kickstarting growth, unleashing green energy, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour, providing opportunities to young people, and rebuilding public services – mayors and combined authorities are perfectly placed to deliver. The prime minister recognises this, and so has tasked us all with developing ambitious, long-term plans for growth – plans which identify barriers to opportunity and outline the tools we need to overcome them.

In return, the Labour government will equip us with those tools – the powers and support we need to get Britain building again, repair our crumbling infrastructure, and create the well-paid jobs our communities need and deserve.

The reason for this new approach is simple: elected mayors can respond more quickly and effectively to local challenges than the centre, because we understand the places that elected us.

We know what skills courses our residents need to secure well-paid jobs in the local labour market. We know what support our small and medium sized businesses need to succeed and scale. We know the challenges our commuters face getting to work quickly and reliably. And we know how many new homes we need to build, and where.

Here in West Yorkshire, we’re bringing buses back under public control. Consulting on new tram routes to better connect our region. Building the affordable and sustainable homes our families need. Tackling violence against women and girls. And creating a region of learning and creativity where everyone can get the skills they need to succeed.

With greater devolution of powers locally, we can do so much more.

Labour’s plans will deliver a fundamental rewiring of England’s political system. It will ensure that the national industrial strategy works for all of our communities, and gives every part of the country the chance to take on devolved powers, allowing them to take the bold decisions that are right for their areas.

The devolution decade is upon us. It couldn’t be more needed.

Tracy Brabin is the Labour mayor of West Yorkshire

Home advantage

by Paul Swinney

To deliver the homes we so desperately need, the planning system must be reformed

A big part of Labour’s election campaign was centred around getting Britain building again. And they have wasted no time – Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ claim to have advanced the planning system further in 72 hours than the Conservatives did in 14 years is a bold claim, but she did, in very short order, reverse some of the less helpful changes made during the previous parliament.

But why have Labour singled out an area that for decades has been a political quagmire? It is largely because the existing planning system, brought in just after the second world war, is acting like a handbrake on the UK economy.

Centre for Cities’ estimates suggest that, since the introduction of the modern planning system, the UK has built up a backlog of 4.3m ‘missing homes’ that should have been built but were not. This is because – unlike in Europe – our discretionary, case-by-case planning system means proposed developments can fit all the rules and the requirements of a local plan and still be rejected.

And that is to say nothing of the commercial space that hasn’t been built over this period.

In case that still all sounds very tangential, let’s have a look at how a housing shortage has impacted Bristol, one of the UK’s stronger-performing cities. From 2004 to 2021, its economic output almost doubled, fuelled by an increase in skilled graduates who were able to fill the vacancies in the city’s fast-growing digital, science and technology sectors.

Even before 2004, Bristol had a housing crisis, with housing being some of the most expensive in the country and homes per head being lower than the national average. Unsurprisingly, the economic growth of the past two decades has exacerbated the pressure. While the city has built more homes, with the total number of residences increasing by almost a fifth, this has been nowhere near enough to meet the ever-growing demand in the city. The result is that house price growth has far outstripped national increases and local increases in wages, and there are now even fewer homes per person than there were in 2004. The lowest-income families are squeezed the most. On average, the cost of a house was 11.7 times the average annual wage in 2022, above the national average of 9.8. But the lowest quartile housing cost around 13 times the average wages of those in the bottom quartile of earnings.

A look at where houses have and haven’t been built in the city gives an indication as to why. Bristol is one of the least dense of all of the UK’s largest cities, which as a group are much less dense than their western European counterparts. And, outside the city centre, there has been very little building within Bristol’s existing footprint over the last two decades – most neighbourhoods look exactly like they did 20 years ago. The discretionary nature of the planning system makes this very difficult to change.

This leaves building out as the answer. Some of this has happened, particularly to the north of the city. But it now finds itself in the stranglehold of the greenbelt, which is 4.5 times larger than Bristol itself.

The experience of Bristol is replicated all across the UK. For a country that is in a close to two-decade productivity slump and desperately needs growth to lift wages and generate money to pay for public services, this is not a good thing.

So, what does this analysis mean for the government’s reforms? Short-term changes, including stronger housing targets, new towns and building on the ‘grey belt’, are all welcome. But if we are to deliver the homes the country needs we need to do something about the fundamental cause of the problem – the planning system itself.

This means replacing the current system with a rules-based, flexible zoning system where proposed housing developments that meet all the requirements of the local plan are automatically granted approval, as has been done in New Zealand. This doesn’t take local consent away from the process. It just moves it upstream, setting the rules of the planning game. Once these are set, developers will know what will and won’t be allowed. And this injection of certainty into the system will make it easier for developers, both large and small, to come forward with new homes.

This is a big change. But Labour has promised big change. If it is going to deliver on the homes it has recognised we rightly need, then it needs a system that supports cities like Bristol to built both up and out.

Paul Swinney is director of policy and research at Centre for Cities

Underlying condition

by Sasjkia Otto

If it is to fix the economy, Labour must promote healthy workplaces

Of all the unfortunate legacies of 14 years of Conservative rule, the health of our workforce is one of the most serious. A record 3 million working-age people are currently out of the labour force due to ill health. The new Labour government must act quickly to promote healthy workplaces.

The stakes are high. Solving poor health among workers is key to addressing the UK’s low growth and public service pressures. The NHS, in particular, is feeling the pressure from both ends: healthcare professionals are dropping out, while waiting lists remain stubbornly long. Fabian Society survey research shows that, among workless over-50s, 16 per cent say they are on an NHS waiting list and that it is affecting their ability to work.

More broadly, the Times Health Commission found that the economic cost of working-age ill health is £150bn per year. The cost to government from benefits, lost taxes and healthcare is £70bn. For comparison, the total NHS budget for 2023/24 was £170bn.

This problem is the result of gaps in support for workers to stay well in work and to rehabilitate or effectively manage their symptoms if they become ill. Complicating the matter, work itself is often a cause of ill health: musculoskeletal and mental health conditions are the biggest contributors to being off sick and to sickness benefits claims, and most experiencing these conditions cite work as a contributing factor.

Working conditions are key. Workers at risk of ill-health often receive poor support. This is especially the case if employers do not view them as ‘disabled’ under the Equality Act and so believe them ineligible for ‘reasonable adjustments’ required by law. Other employers do not understand what kind of adjustments could help someone stay well at work, or they do not think the necessary adjustments are ‘reasonable’. Some workers face detriment after sharing confidential medical details; many don’t take the risk. Our survey found that among over-50s who have experienced health problems in the past five years, just 17 per cent say that they have asked for reasonable adjustments and that their request was granted in full.

Compounding the problem, access to occupational health services is far from widespread. The Department for Work and Pensions reports that only 45 per cent of workers in Britain currently have access to some form of occupational health service, which is significantly lower than many comparable countries. And while 92 per cent of large employers provide some kind of occupational health service, this rate drops to just 18 per cent of small employers – meaning support is missing in exactly those workplaces where older and disabled workers are more prevalent.

But issues with occupational health support in the UK go beyond poor access. Often, the problems are ones we have known about for a long time: many were identified in Dame Carol Black’s 2008 review. Occupational health is detached from mainstream healthcare, making it difficult for workers to access joined-up support. It also tends to be reactive rather than proactive, and neglect those not in a formal employment situation. Quality is inconsistent, and employees find it difficult to trust support that is integrated with HR functions.

The past decade has shown that, if we continue on the current trajectory, we will see mixed results at best. We have seen little progress on workplace health while government has taken a back seat. No wonder so many are out of work sick. We need radical action on health at work. Now is the time to ask seriously whether the UK needs a National Occupational Health Service, and what this might look like. Previous Fabian Society research has recommended free access to occupational health services for those working for small and medium-sized employers and the self-employed. The government should also take action to raise provision among large employers to 100 per cent. But looking at access isn’t enough on its own. The government should also review occupational health standards, how different organisations work together to deliver them, and whether existing employment rights, responsibilities and practical support are fit for purpose.

Our economy and public services depend on getting this right.

Sasjkia Otto is a senior researcher at the Fabian Society

Local potential

by Bev Craig

Labour needs to set out a coherent role for local government to achieve its ambitions of national renewal

There are few institutions as central to fixing the fundamentals as local government.

Whether it’s delivering the core tenets of the social contract through the likes of housing and social care, or acting as convenors of place to foster inclusive economic growth, local leaders play a central role in maintaining the architecture of prosperous and vibrant places.

Despite this, over the past decade, local authorities have had to engage with a national government prevaricating between active cost-cutting and mere indifference to the mounting scale of the challenges they face. Manchester alone has had to make £443m of savings since 2010, while the sector nationally faces a £6bn black hole over the next two years, on the basis of the previous Conservative government’s plans.

Nevertheless, if we can realise the latent potential of local areas across the country, the opportunities are immense. For example, were members of the Core Cities group and their hinterlands to match the performance of their European peers, it would boost economic activity by over 20 per cent, adding £100bn per year to the UK economy in perpetuity – a huge potential economic dividend, which would also see over a million people removed from poverty and tens of millions of years gained in improved health.

Given these challenges and opportunities, and in the context of a new Labour government, the capacity of local government to deliver must be at the forefront of our minds. The mission-driven agenda underpinning the government’s approach speaks not just to the need to reimagine Whitehall’s ways of working: a reformed core must be accompanied by a dynamic and empowered local level.

To facilitate this, local leaders also have a responsibility to foster best practice and transformation, even in this incredibly challenging fiscal environment. In Manchester, we have acknowledged the need to get on the front foot.

Investing in prevention, early years and education has seen our schools now outperforming the national average for the first time in our history, while our work to reform public services – bolstered by our Making Manchester Fairer plan – has applied renewed focus to supporting those experiencing multiple disadvantage, and our trajectory on social care is exceptionally positive. Manchester shows what can be possible if a long-term plan, devolution of power and momentum of delivery are aligned.

This demonstrated energy and ability to innovate can be found in local areas across the country – you need only skim through the Local Government Association’s ‘101 Achievements of Labour in Power’, produced ahead of the election, to see countless examples of Labour local and regional authorities leading the way on this agenda.

Despite the optimism represented by this activity, the budgets underpinning local government are creaking. Importantly, this is not solely a problem with the local government finance settlement – ie, the money that flows from central government to local authorities. It is just as much to do with the fact that local government has been asked to address the inadequacies of the centre as they have played out across the country’s localities. This is a multi-faceted challenge, but it poses an opportunity in that cross-government solutions can contribute to an improvement in what local government must deal with.

And the payoff for addressing pressing local issues reaches beyond local government. Stabilising social care helps stabilise the NHS. Addressing soaring homeless[1]ness improves life chances and reduces spending.

Reforming under-pressure special educational needs and disabilities support improves educational attainment.

This government was elected on a mandate to deliver growth and reform, with the understanding that one is required for the other to flourish. To bring its major national ambitions to bear in a manner no previous government has to date, a defined and coherent role for local government is required – underpinned by new robust financial arrangements and further devolution, enabling accelerated delivery that is tailored to suit local areas’ different strengths and needs and the aspirations of their residents.

Local government is in the business of improving lives and strengthening communities. Having taken on the role of Labour group leader at the LGA following the general election, this year’s conference season represents an exciting opportunity to explore how we can strengthen the role of local government in the delivery of this Labour government’s missions.

Image credit: crabchick via Flickr

The post Your Time Starts Now – Vol 2 first appeared on Fabian Society.

But despite not being a consumer-facing company, GB Energy will require a ‘social licence’. It will be judged not primarily by the value it returns to shareholders (which will ultimately be taxpayers) but by how its investments affect the lives of British working people, by reducing household energy bills and creating new jobs while fully decarbonising electricity by 2030. Not easy to do given the sclerotic progress of recent years, and the de facto embargo on onshore windfarms which has only now been lifted.

To make things more difficult still, the challenge of deploying twice as much renewable energy over the next five years, when there is currently up to a 10-year wait to connect renewable assets to the grid, is one that GB Energy cannot tackle on its own. It must be part of a wider ecosystem of change. Whilst GB Energy is focused on the “delivery of clean power by coinvesting in technologies” and to “deploy local energy production”, the new National Wealth Fund will take a whole-of-economy approach to encouraging private investment into “ports, giga-factories, hydrogen, and the steel industry”.

The new government is also promising to shake up planning. Whilst the specifics are yet to be announced, this might include extending the compulsory purchase powers under the 2023 Levelling-up and Regeneration Act to include housing and renewable energy as nationally significant infrastructure projects. Green Belt protections will also need to be more nuanced.

GB Energy, then, is at the centre of proposed systemic change: despite appearances, its implications make it the most radical part of the King’s Speech. At present, the new government with its large majority has political licence to start this process. But the ‘wide but shallow’ majority Labour holds will soon be under attack via the nimbyism that is already knocking at the door of many backbench and opposition MPs. With streamlined planning will come reactions from communities the country over, many who agree with renewable energy in principle, but do not to wish to see it – or the grid infrastructure it requires – near their homes. The social licence must be established now, before the backlash builds.

The government needs to be very clear about why the transition is essential. The case must be made both in terms of our moral responsibility to protect the climate and the economic necessity for the UK to remain at the forefront of the race to net zero. Energy security is clearly central to this, which – over the longer term – will deliver cheaper energy. But to set up expectations that secure energy will mean cheap energy any time soon (compared with pre-Ukraine crisis levels) is misleading, a point Mark McAllister, the chair of Ofgem, has repeated over recent months.

The government also needs to set out the principles through which it will ensure the transition is both ‘fair’ and ‘just’. Tough decisions will need to be made about where to invest and where not to invest, where to build power grids and pylons, where the onshore wind and solar farms should go, and so on. The principles must be set now and so too the oversight and accountability mechanisms that will operate at pace over the next 25 years – both within the new company and externally. The new Net Zero Economy Authority in Australia is one emerging model to look at, integrating social considerations (eg impact on workers) into overall delivery structures. In the UK, we can look to the early thinking of the Climate Change Committee, Scotland’s Just Transition Commission or city-based initiatives such as those in London or Bristol, to frame how we might best deliver a fair and equitable transition. However it is done, streamlined planning and greater coherence from central government must be accompanied by dynamic accountability so that the public can see hard decisions can also be made fairly. GB Energy needs to build, and then maintain, its social licence.

Image credit: Cjp24, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Image credit (pinned, News and Insight): Ian S, CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The post Building a case first appeared on Fabian Society.

From the intellectual heft of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, to the Fabians in Ramsay MacDonald’s first Cabinet. From the part you played modernising Labour in the 1990s, to the support you have given today’s Fabians, Keir Starmer, myself, and much of the Shadow Cabinet.

The Fabian Society has always been wise enough to know that political ideas only have real value when they can be put into practice.

This year, Keir Starmer’s leadership means we have our best opportunity in a generation to turn our ideas into change, as the UK goes to the polls in this bumper year of elections around the world.

The choice the British public faces is not only a choice between two parties. It is a choice that will determine the spirit of Britain in a changing world.

Will we be led by a Conservative government which betrays our children on Net Zero to wage culture wars at home? Or a Labour government which unites the country around creating green jobs and protecting the planet.

A Conservative government which treats our European neighbours as opponents? Or a Labour government which recognises, with war on our continent, they are our closest allies and friends.

A Conservative government threatening to break international law to deport refugees to Rwanda? Or a Labour government which knows international law and human rights are fundamental to the British way of life.

Fabians, this is the choice. A Conservative government intent on stirring division.

Or Keir Starmer’s Labour government that will unite the country, repair Britain’s alliances, restore Britain’s values, and reconnect Britain to restore our influence around the world.

A New World Disorder, Fabians. Internationally, times are bleak.

From Ukraine to Gaza, from my parents’ country of Guyana to the Sahel, there has been a cascade of crises.

But these all have something in common – the increasing threat of military force, the indifference to human rights, and the impotence of the rules-based order.

These are not disconnected crises. This is the new world disorder emerging as the old rules-based order erodes.

We face accelerating great power rivalry and the creeping multilateral dysfunction from the WTO to the United Nations. An institution Rishi Sunak treated with such disdain when he refused to attend the General Assembly this year.

While the world debated climate action, he stayed at home to ditch Britain’s climate ambitions and make up nonsense about seven bins.

From vanishing Antarctic Sea ice to Canadian wildfires, there has been a stampede of emergencies. This is a climate in crisis, made worse by Tories playing political games and compounded by geopolitics.

Where the mounting disorder makes it harder to cooperate politically and build a shared green future.

I want us to pause here and, with that Fabian spirit of inquiry, take in the full meaning of the word crisis.

Crisis entered our language originally as a medical term, the moment when the patient either begins to recover or begins to slip away. And the word itself, Krisis, is the Greek for a decision.

Friends, we are living in a moment where the conditions we have taken for granted could be lost forever without action.

After 14 years of Conservative chaos, making working people poorer, reducing Britain’s influence, and dragging our country backward, can we really afford another five?

No.

Can our economy handle another five Tory budgets?

No.

Can our reputation survive another five years of Tory Prime Ministers standing alone on the world stage?

No.

Do we want another half-decade of Tory backsliding on climate action?

No.

Do we want another five years of failure on international development?

No.

Addressing these challenges in a way that is true to who we are, as progressives, requires a fresh approach.

As a movement, from the first Fabian Essays to today, we have always had the same principles. But how we apply them in power has always reflected the context we faced.

Last year, I was proud to publish a pamphlet for the Fabian Society. The vision it lays out is for ‘A Britain Reconnected’ for our security and prosperity at home.

One year on, I want to build on it by explaining the approach that underpins it. I call it Progressive Realism.

Progressive because our foreign policy will be founded on our values of equality, the rule of law, and internationalism.

Realist because we will focus on making practical, tangible progress with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

People have put these words together before, and some have sought to create a false binary between them.

But our approach will combine the best of two great Labour traditions, the commitment to realism of Ernest Bevin, the Foreign Secretary who gave us NATO. And the commitment to progress of Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary who put principle at the heart of foreign policy.

Ernie Bevin, the Bristol barrow boy born into rural poverty, saw more clearly than any aristocrat that the dictators of the 1930s were no friends of Britain and those that admired them had no place in our movement.

He would have wanted us to say loud and clear here today that Vladimir Putin is not just a dictator but the ringleader of a new form of fascism, bringing invasion and oppression to our neighbours. That we cannot let pass.

Ernie Bevin, a man who studied at the Fabian night school, who dared to shout down Stalin at Potsdam, was one of our greatest statesmen.

Who, with his commitment to realism, brought us the NATO alliance that is still the bedrock of our security and fought for a nuclear bomb as he put it with the union jack on top. A deterrent that remains a key element of Britain’s foreign and security policy today.

This unflinching honesty about the security threats we face, about the alliances we have to build, is the realism we need to stand tall to the dictators of our day. But, as much as I admire Ernie, he too had faults. A product of his time, he failed to perceive the historic wrongs of Empire.

And this is where I want to look at Robin Cook, a friend and mentor to so many of us. There was realism to Robin too. But what I most admired about him was his conviction that foreign policy must serve principle.

Who, with his commitment to progressive values, brought our allies onboard over Kosovo, the question of human rights into cabinet, and climate action as a core objective of the Foreign Office.

This was his foreign policy with an ethical dimension, only a phrase, but one that snagged on the limits of what was possible.

We see, at times, in his Foreign Office, the frustrations of idealism that becomes too far removed from realism when it comes to defence or dealing with those with whom we otherwise disagree.

We will learn from his idealism. But, again, as much as I admire Robin, he too was a product of his time. A Foreign Secretary in a more optimistic world, fewer crises, and not as many hard choices.

Friends, Labour’s progressive realism is to put Bevin at the service of Cook.

It is to use realist means to pursue progressive ends. Because our history, as a movement, is telling us you cannot deliver Cook’s idealism without Bevin’s realism.

In today’s world, we can’t let ourselves be forced into a false choice between values and interests, between openness to the world and defence of our nation, between a self-awareness of our history and a confidence in our future, between idealism and realism.

Both are needed. Because when progressives act with realism and practical purpose, we can change the world.

Friends, the new world disorder is claiming lives with the highest number of conflicts in thirty years.

Nowhere is this more visible than the Middle East. In Gaza, thousands of innocent children have been killed, over 85% of the population have now been made refugees, and more than one hundred Israeli hostages are still held as prisoners while rockets still fly into Israel.

The situation is intolerable, which is why Labour has called for a sustainable ceasefire with a humanitarian truce – now – as the first step.

Labour is clear: the violence must stop and we must return to diplomacy to stop the whole region descending into full-scale war.

I have visited the Middle East four times since the horrific terrorist attack on the 7th October. On each trip, I returned with new fears of escalation.

Last week I was in Beirut, where Lebanon’s Prime Minister warned me how close we are to a disastrous full-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

In November I was in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories. In the West Bank, I saw shot-out cars and met victims of shocking settler violence.

And now the Red Sea. For the past two months, the Houthis have harassed civilian vessels indiscriminately despite condemnation by the UN Security Council, despite warnings from the UK, US, and ten other nations.

Those attacks continued, putting civilians and military personnel in danger and threatening a devastating rise in the cost of food in some of the poorest countries in the world.

That is why Labour supported the targeted action last week. No realist can ignore the consequences of closing the Red Sea. And no progressive should sympathize with the Houthis.

The very real risks of escalation across the region are distinct but they all demonstrate the essential importance of preventative diplomacy, a habit, a practice, and an art in which British diplomacy has traditionally excelled but one that needs urgent revival.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Israel and Palestine.

A decade of diplomatic indifference has enabled the enemies of peace, security, and two states.

And there is a danger that after the horrors of the last four months, we simply sleepwalk into further despair.

Realism about conflict must not be confused with pessimism. The Israeli Prime Minister’s rejection of a Palestinian state is morally wrong.

Practically wrong.

And against the interests of all people, Palestinian and Israeli.

The peaceful quest for a Palestinian state is a just cause. As Keir Starmer has said, it is the undeniable right of the Palestinian people.

And the only path to guarantee a just and lasting peace for both Israelis and Palestinians.

The Israeli government must immediately change their approach. From the pain and despair, new will and a new political process must emerge to make two states a reality.

Friends, we must not exaggerate our influence but never underestimate our determination.

A Labour government will push for an International Contact Group to take over from the defunct Quartet to coordinate with our Western and Arab partners over Gaza.

We will create a new Middle East Peace envoy. And, Fabians have no doubt, we will work with international partners to recognise the state of Palestine, as part of our efforts to help bring about a just and lasting peace.

And friends, in our progressive realism, cancel culture will not feature, we will shake the hands we need for peace.

We will work with, not snub, our partners in the Gulf in order to deliver a road to peace and a Palestinian state. Realist means. Progressive ends.

But as we press forward this hard diplomacy, we must not lose focus on the disorder close to home. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has chosen the path of war and committed to it with a war economy.

This is a different Russia even from that which launched its unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

This is a Russia that has thrown in its lot with the rogues of the world system, Iran and North Korea.

Russia is now producing more shells than the West combined. South Korea has supplied more shells to Ukraine than all European countries combined.

We in Europe risk taking our eye off the ball. This is a generational security challenge, a long-term material security threat to Europe that will require a long-term material response. Not for a few months, not even for a few years, but for the foreseeable future.

This is why if I become Foreign Secretary, in my first 100 days, I will travel to Kyiv to demonstrate Labour’s long-term commitment to stop Vladimir Putin and begin work on a pathway towards Ukraine’s NATO membership.

And we will begin work with European colleagues on our proposal for a new UK-EU Security Pact, bringing structured dialogue back to the relationship and a common focus on our continent’s security with Ukraine at the heart.

We will turn the page on the Tory years which put ideology before European security.

This is progressive realism. We will work with, not spurn, our European neighbours in order to support Ukraine and remind the dictator in the Kremlin never to test our commitments. Realist means. Progressive ends.

From the floods to the fires, from ice sheets to the ocean heat, a longer-term crisis is reaching a tipping point.

When it comes to the climate, there is reason for hope. From Paris to Glasgow and to Dubai, COP, for all its flaws, has made progress.

The agreement to transition away “from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” was an important moment for the world.

Of course, progress is too slow. The hard math tells us we are still off track. But Friends, again, we must not confuse realism with pessimism.

In 2015, after Paris, we were headed to a world warmer by 3.5 degrees.

Today, after Dubai, we are officially headed to 2.4 degrees, with dynamics pointing to getting that below 2.

In 2015, after Paris, globally we were investing $500 billion in clean energy versus 800 billion for oil and gas.

Today, after Dubai, we are investing $1.8 trillion in clean energy, twice as much as in oil and gas.

Friends, we can change our future. With an optimism rooted in reality. In government, we want to deepen this cooperation.

This is why, if I become Foreign Secretary, UK diplomats will work to build a Clean Power Alliance of developed and developing countries to drive forward the transition, set the pace for global action, and lower the cost of clean energy at home and abroad.

Our ambition is an “inverse OPEC” in which countries collaborate on clean power. Because when it comes to energy, if we are not cooperating as much as the oil producers, we cannot be surprised if we keep falling behind.

Britain can only hope to lead on this agenda if we are able to set an example. That is why we will double down on work to reform international financial institutions like the World Bank to help developing countries deliver the clean energy infrastructure they need to decarbonise their economies.

And Fabians, it is why Labour has pledged to end new licenses to explore oil and gas in the North Sea.

Friends, Keir Starmer has set out a mission to make the UK a world-leading clean energy superpower, delivering a zero-carbon electricity system by 2030.

And from the first day, I will work to ensure that the Foreign Office is delivering the international dimension of Keir’s agenda.

Building on what my colleague Rachel Reeves calls securonomics.

And working hand in glove with Ed Miliband, for our Green Prosperity Plan, I will work to get Britain the agreements it needs, to provide the minerals and the markets for its green goods.

Realist means.

Progressive ends.

The climate challenge is no passing moment. It is here for the long term.

And China, not the West, is ahead in the race, with over three quarters of world solar production, with over 80 per cent of the world’s lithium refining, and as the world’s largest sovereign development creditor.

This is a historic shift which our eyes must open to. In many areas, the West is no longer driving industrial modernity.

But Britain must catch up.

Friends, we live in frightening times…

Both geopolitically, and ecologically. We live in a moment of ‘Krisis’. Of decision. Both for Britain and for the world.

If Labour has the privilege of forming the next government, the eyes of tomorrow will be on us.

Will our children grow up in a Britain, where our people are secure, and our planet is protected?

This is not guaranteed.

We need to fight, to plan for the long term and to put our ideas into practice.

Friends, this is a moment where history is asking something of us. Can we meet the challenges of the age like Attlee’s great government of 1945? Fabians, we can!

Can we, like them, lay the foundations for a decade of national renewal Fabians, we can!

Can we, like Labour governments of old make Britain once again an exporter of solutions rather than problems? Fabians, we can!

Can we, like our heroes, say no the dictators? Fabians, we can!

Can we defend our planet, while creating the green jobs of the future? Fabians, we can!

This is progressive realism. A call to action. Robin Cook had a vision, And Ernie Bevin had a saying. Brothers, sisters, let’s build.

The homes, the windmills, the alliances, that will deliver the security Britain needs.

To reach the brighter future, that as Labour, we have always believed in, and our children deserve.

Thank you.

The post Progressive realism first appeared on Fabian Society.

Twenty years on from the Brexit referendum, the slogan ‘take back control’ finally has meaning in communities across the country. Rising living standards have been sustained for a decade, and communities which for so long were held back by Tory economic failure are on the rise. People are beginning to feel that they have a real stake in the economy, and can feel the benefits when it does well. Homes are being built; new bus, tram and rail networks are connecting the country; and our neighbourhoods, towns and cities have a new lease of life.

The catalyst was a new Labour government, determined to reverse 13 years of decline, pushing through a radical programme of devolution in its first 100 days. The ‘Take Back Control’ Bill, as it was popularly know, was bold, brave and decisive. It devolved a third of Labour’s £28bn a year green investment pledge to local areas alongside new tax powers and control over education, skills, employment support, energy, housing, planning and local transport.

In return for these powers, a new generation of directly elected regional mayors – supported by combined authorities – were tasked with driving economic change in their communities. New partnerships with local businesses, trade unions, public institutions, and community groups were forged to drive the place-based economic revival. Local leaders successfully used the procurement and investment power of the local state to create new green industries and rebuild local services – unlocking millions of good jobs that pay decent wages. And through a boom in cooperatives & community ownership, people in every community have a direct stake in the new industries and services that have sprung up. People feel power and agency for the first time over the foundations that shape their lives. And the promise of change feels real.

Miatta Fahnbulleh is chief executive of the New Economics Foundation and Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Camberwell and Peckham

Lis Wallace on global justice

To understand the Britain of 2037 – a Britain that has enjoyed 13 years of Labour government – you must look beyond our shores, and beyond Europe, to the rest of the world.

Because 2037, and Britain’s place in it, has been moulded by our ability to respond to the global challenges and opportunities of the present era. The threats of climate change, food insecurity, pandemics, instability and conflict have been mitigated, reversing the decline during the first decades of this millennium. What changed was that under 13 years of an internationalist, progressive Labour government, Britain pushed for a fairer and more equal global system.

By reorienting British foreign policy to be more respectful and solidaristic, particularly with the global south, the UK helped bring about a more equitable and prosperous future for all. By supporting African countries to harness renewable energy sources, a greener future now lies ahead. Reforms of the development finance system, supported by the UK, have unlocked huge sums of money for low-and-middle-income countries to build resilience and invest in infrastructure. By adopting a ‘prevention is better than cure’ approach to humanitarian crises, Britain has helped avert emergencies. By promoting partnerships that build global health security and endorsing efforts to manufacture vaccines on the African continent, it has helped ensure the world as a whole can respond to health threats more effectively, wherever they are, creating a more equitable, healthier and prosperous world for all.

Britain in 2037 is more appreciated by the global community; we are their partner of choice. Not only have progressive international policies shifted power, tackled inequalities and transformed the future for so many around the world, but British people are safer, healthier and wealthier as a result.

Lis Wallace is director of UK policy and advocacy at The ONE Campaign

Jeni Tennison on digitalisation

It’s hard to believe the tech we rely on in 2037 hadn’t been invented when Labour came to power. And hard to remember how out-of-control everything felt, with anti-AI strikes, data-centre-driven water shortages and election-compromising deep-fakes – not to mention vague threats of extinction – making us feel that tech was something we could only react to, never shape. How did the Labour government turn it around?

First, it didn’t just believe that artificial intelligence could be used for public good, but insisted it had to be. Scorning market-driven hype cycles, Labour targeted digital public-sector procurement and research and development spending to focus on the most important problems, including the climate crisis and improving quality of life. It invested in public connectivity, data centres, and digital and data infrastructure, with subsidies at the community level, making tech development easier and cheaper as well as returning value to the public purse.

Second, it made people power a reality. We’ve all seen coverage of the national citizen assemblies, from the seminal Democracy Digitised, now more than a decade old, to last year’s somewhat controversial AI for a Healthy Britain. Closer to home, many of us have participated in deliberations about digital adoption in our workplaces, schools and communities. Having a powerful say has helped us understand tech and enabled us to welcome it on our own terms. Finally, re-establishing the UK’s international reputation has paid off in the tech space, and we’ve played a useful role in brokering concrete global agreements to ban lethal autonomous weapons, crack down on deepfakes and reward creators. It’s a far cry from Sunak’s tech-bro posturing and the exclusionary ‘Global AI Safety Summit’ of 2023.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. But we’ve had clear leadership, a bold vision, and ministers who are both passionate and sceptical about technology. The last 13 years have rebalanced the relationship between people and technology: no longer resigned or fearful, we are free to embrace innovation with optimism.

Jeni Tennison is the founder and executive director of Connected by Data. She is also co-chair of the data governance working group at the Global Partnership on AI

Paul Martin on housing

When Starmer’s Labour government came to power, housing was a major national problem, affecting almost everyone in a way it had not done since 1945.

Labour set as its strategic aim “a decent home for all,” and recognised that average earnings and the typical cost of housing had to converge as soon as possible.

Ministers and local councillors were determined to press ahead. They knew that increasing the supply of high-quality homes was crucial and set about tackling the key obstacles: a lack of skilled labour and shortages of materials.

Priority was given to building affordable council properties with the twin aims of meeting the needs of the poorest and helping to bring down the cost of private renting.

At national level, ministers drew on the lessons of a century before, examining the failures and successes of early 20th-century legislation. They decided that the market would not provide unless it was politically directed and driven, so they led a task force which brought together construction firms, trade unions and training centres committed to their programme.

After far too long out of power, Labour ministers and local councillors quickly relearned how to make good things happen and at speed.

As well as funding new-builds, Labour set about the key task of retrofitting older homes, ensuring that funding streams were focused, legal frameworks were fit for purpose and environmental standards would be met.

British people today, the overwhelming majority of whom live in secure, high-quality and affordable housing, have Labour to thank: it met the challenge of the era.

Paul Martin is policy lead for the Labour Housing Group

Praful Nargund on skills and training

After a sustained period of progressive government, much has changed for the better for people in the UK. Thirteen years of Labour government have delivered a growing, green economy and a transformation in public services. Satisfaction rates for the NHS are at record highs. Inequality has decreased and opportunity has been hardwired into the system of school, college, university, and work. The ‘class ceiling’ has been smashed and the country has experienced a skills revolution.

At the heart of this change was comprehensive reform to education and training. The starting point for incoming Labour ministers back in 2024 was getting a solid grip on the skills agenda. The Tories had failed dismally on skilling the workforce. They had cut funding for further education, messed up apprenticeships, botched T-levels, and presided over chaos in the universities. They left office with many British workers lacking the right skills to face the future.

Labour knew that education and training had to match economic needs and therefore had to be as flexible and fluid as the fast-changing economy itself. No more false divides between education, training, and apprenticeships, and no more snobbery and stigma attached to ‘vocational’ pathways. No more sclerotic bureaucracy. No more silos.

The new national skills taskforce – Skills England – proved a guiding force for the skills revolution, and was soon emulated across the devolved nations. Unions, employers and providers sat around the table together to drive forward the skills revolution.

The Labour government leaned into advances in technology, ensuring that technology became a liberator rather than a master. Just like Labour in the ‘white heat’ of the 1960s, Labour embraced the opportunities that could be extended to all. A new era of lifelong learning emerged, with every generation learning the digital skills to adapt to the new challenges of work. Britain solidified its position as a world-leader in AI and digital tech, overcoming the lottery of background and birth to release new innovation, improved productivity and growth.

Putting businesses and trade unions at the heart of the process proved effective. The system flexed to the needs of employers – more short courses, more modular courses and a transformation of the apprenticeship levy. Revamping the schools curriculum and creating an energetic new careers advice service for all young people was another positive reform.

The measure which most changed public attitudes towards apprenticeships, especially among potential recruits, was introducing an apprentice minimum wage in line with the national minimum wage. With this single act, the government signalled that we value apprentices and apprenticeships. As notable economists showed, including the Fabian Society’s own report in 2028, the upfront cost of a minimum wage for apprentices was recouped many times over in returns to the economy.

Lastly, Labour’s skills revolution has played a significant part in greening the British economy. For decades, the talk of ‘green jobs’ had been woolly and unfulfilled. Now at last, British workers could receive real skills training in the jobs that a green economy demands. From construction workers building zero-carbon homes, to insulators retrofitting buildings, to urban farmers, to entrepreneurs in the fields of fashion, recycling, design or renewables, British workers got the skills to get on.

Praful Nargund is an entrepreneur and campaigner on skills. He is part of the Labour party’s Council of Skills Advisors and a Labour councillor in Islington

The post Britain 2037 – Vol. 3 first appeared on Fabian Society.

This statistic is not, strictly speaking, false. But those 100 companies do not exist in a vacuum; they produce the steel in our cars, the concrete in our towns and cities, and the fossil fuels that are used to transport and produce almost everything we use in our day to day lives. Our immersion in the destructive global system is difficult to overstate. The truth is that any effective effort to tackle the climate crisis will inevitably change the way we live our lives, and any failure to adapt will result in our lives being turned upside down by the consequences of inaction. We can change now, or we can be forced to change later on. The idea of a middle ground – that we can continue living this way, whilst also sheltering ourselves from the impacts of climate change – is what I call the fallacy of the orderly transition.

Acknowledging our role in the climate crisis has a silver lining: it empowers us. Because we are part of the problem, we know that we can be part of the solution. Large companies and governments must certainly take responsibility for providing the resources and expertise we need to address climate change. But we have a part to play, too – not least providing the impetus for companies and governments to change.

Ordinary people are not powerless spectators; pretending otherwise may make green politics more palatable in the short term, but as climate change gets worse, will only breed despair. And solutions drawn up and implemented behind closed doors, without our participation, are much less likely to win widespread support.

We can still out-change the climate

When we live in a world where almost all options presented to us are environmentally damaging, the question is: are we ready to accept the changes that will protect us from the very worst of climate change? Research shows there is strong willingness to make concessions to our way of life to improve the environment, across all generations. A 2021 study of 2,000 British adults found that 65-70 per cent of people are willing to make ‘significant’ changes to their own lifestyle to reduce the effects of climate change. The same study also highlighted that younger people feel more hopeless about their ability to have an impact. This is worrying. We need a story that tells people that their actions are genuinely meaningful, whilst still holding big polluters to account. Our apathy towards climate change gives those same big polluters a green light to continue their destruction, and this will not change for as long as we feel separated from the issue.

There is cause for optimism: human beings are extremely adaptable. Covid-19 changed our way of life almost overnight, and recent changes in technology have profoundly changed the way we live (and will do so again in the coming years). Ironically, anthropologists believe that early humans honed their adaptability as they migrated through different climates. We now have a new climate reality to adapt to, and quickly. We should remember how society has transformed throughout history and be imaginative about how it can transform again.

We don’t need £1 pineapples

Past experience suggests the government has an important role to play. In 2015, the UK government introduced a 5p charge for plastic bags in supermarkets. Since then, usage at the largest retailers has fallen by more than 98 per cent, and the average person now buys just two plastic bags per year from these retailers, compared to 140 before the charge.

Simply explaining that these bags can be harmful would not have achieved the same result: it required government regulation of business to be successful. We have, however, adopted the change without much pain. Similarly, the requirement to wear a seatbelt and the ban on smoking indoors were also significant regulations when they were introduced, initially opposed but ultimately painless and popular when the rationale was communicated clearly. If people need to change their shopping or travel habits as a result of climate action, or the most destructive options become outright unavailable, it will feel unnatural at first; but it will soon become the norm. We should not be afraid of kickstarting changes like this, and we have a responsibility to demand these changes from governments and businesses.

This framing is not about blaming individuals for emissions; it’s about including them in the process we are going through. People are often yearning to make changes and do not realise how much impact they can have. It’s a theme that often comes up when speaking with my friends: “I am really worried about the climate, but there is nothing I can do”. It’s not true and it’s not helpful. People can have a positive impact through engaging in politics and advocacy as well as simply being open to lifestyle changes. The climate movement is right to focus its anger at the greatest perpetrators, but it needs to bring everybody else along, too. Nobody will sign up if we tell them their efforts are futile, or that everything meaningful will happen in the background. ‘Climate doomism’ is one of the biggest challenges we face, and the fallacy of the orderly transition might be its root cause.

There is an I in climate

Assuming that our lives will not be disrupted by the transition to a sustainable economy, and that we cannot have an impact as individuals, are two connected myths. One is wrong and the other is unhelpful. We need to create a more realistic story about the climate crisis that dispels the fallacy of the orderly transition and encourages people to get involved and demand changes proactively. Over and over again, we have changed our way of life, and my generation will need to do it again one way or another. Let’s do it on our own terms.

The post Life changing first appeared on Fabian Society.

Scotland, 2037: a Scottish Labour government at Holyrood is working hand in hand with Keir Starmer’s government at Westminster, devolving power into our communities and leaving the politics of division in the past. GB Energy, headquartered in Scotland, has made Britain a clean energy superpower, cut bills across the UK and delivered thousands of green jobs to Scotland. Poverty has been tackled head-on, with Labour’s New Deal for Working People putting money in the pockets of millions of workers and ending unfair working practices. And once more, the Scottish economy is growing, with government working together with businesses and workers to make Scotland a great place to live, work and do business in.

But how do we get there? Scotland in 2023 is a very different place. After 16 years of SNP control in Holyrood and 13 years of Tory failure at Westminster, the very foundations of our society are crumbing. Our NHS is on life support, with 1 in 7 Scots on waiting lists. Economic growth in Scotland is lagging behind the meagre growth seen elsewhere in the UK. Homelessness – almost eradicated by the last Labour government – is once more on the rise.

And everywhere, the SNP and the Tories are stoking the politics of division and culture war to distract from their failings. After the last period of prolonged Tory rule, Labour said that ‘things could only get better’. Frankly, it is hard to see how things could get any worse than they are now.

It will fall to the entire Labour movement to pull together to create the fairer, greener and more prosperous United Kingdom of the future by addressing the priorities of the British people. We must put the cost of living crisis front and centre of our plans for the country, forcing down bills and putting more money back in the pockets of working people. We must be bold in delivering the publicly-owned energy company that we need to put our country at the vanguard of the green energy revolution and end our dependence on despots like Vladimir Putin.

And we must be clear that we can only deliver better public services by working with businesses to grow the economy – we cannot tax our way out of economic decline.

The scale of the task before us is indisputable. But every time that this country has needed Labour, whether amidst the rubble of the second world war or the privations of the Thatcher-Major period, we have delivered the change that we need.

Let’s get to work, so that once more we can make Scotland the country we all know it can be.

Anas Sarwar MSP is leader of Scottish Labour

Eloise Sacares on climate adaptation

Climate change is happening. Even as Labour tries to reduce emissions and mitigate its impact, the party must recognise that some degree of climate change is now inevitable.

As a result, Labour must think about what the future will look like, accept that the UK is woefully underprepared, and set out robust adaptation policies.

By 2037, even with significant global progress towards net zero, the UK will have more frequent and severe flooding, heatwaves, and drought. This kind of extreme weather threatens the fundamentals of our everyday lives, and the poorest in society will suffer most.

First, health. In the future, extreme heat could risk the health of those people most exposed to it, like builders and kitchen staff. We currently have a legal minimum working temperature, but no maximum. This is something Labour could consider.

Second, infrastructure. We must reduce water demand and leakage, and increase supply – not least by ensuring water companies pay, rather than profit, when they fail to adapt. ‘Natural infrastructure’, like trees, swales and rain gardens will be important to reduce flooding and overheating in urban areas, as well as improving wellbeing and absorbing carbon.

Third, homes. Labour’s plans to improve energy efficiency through retrofitting should also include measures to adapt to climate change, ensuring that homes do not overheat in summer. And they should consider tightening planning rules, to ensure new-build homes don’t require costly retrofitting in years to come.

Climate change now poses a very real risk to our health, our infrastructure and our homes. By 2037, we could either be facing the consequences of business as usual, or have built a climate-adapted Britain. It is up to the UK to choose its path.

Eloise Sacares is a researcher at the Fabian Society

Rory Palmer on crime and policing

Come 2037, it will be more than 40 years since ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’ became the lodestar of Labour’s approach to criminal justice. This approach will be just as relevant in the 2020s – and 2030s – as it was then. The Conservatives have broken our criminal justice system.

Keir Starmer’s Labour is meeting peoples’ expectations head on. People expect visible, properly-resourced neighbourhood policing and a criminal justice system that does what it is meant to do: secure justice for victims through solving crimes and ensuring perpetrators are punished.

So to 2037: 13 years in office will have seen the next Labour government deliver falls in crime, a rebuilding of neighbourhood policing and the ambitious renewal of the criminal justice system.

There are more police, with 13,000 new frontline recruits on the beat, equipped with the modern resources needed to ensure policing is responsive to the complex digital challenges of the 2020s and 2030s.

Labour’s missions to halve violence against women and girls and halve knife crime have been driven through cross-government approaches, underpinned legislatively and through new specialist units.

Progress has been secured year on year in these crucial missions. People feel safer, and confidence in the police is on a consistently upward trajectory. Through a whole-society approach and empowering local systems, Labour has broken the costly cycle of reoffending. The collapse in charge rates has been reversed through innovative joint arrangements between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the Victims’ Commissioner has new powers to strengthen support for victims.

Recognising the grave state injustices of the past, Labour has put a Hillsborough law on the statute book.

After 13 years of decisive leadership and intelligent statecraft, the next Labour government will have secured what the public expect: safer streets, properly-resourced, responsive neighbourhood policing and a rebuilt, effective justice system.

Rory Palmer is the Labour and Co-op candidate for police & crime commissioner in Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland

 Julie Ward on Europe

The EU is likely to look radically different by 2037, with a swathe of new members including Ukraine, Moldova and possibly Georgia, as well as the remaining Balkan states, whose isolation outside the bloc is increasingly problematic given the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions. The broader international picture will be different too: the EU-ACP partnership looks set to usurp the Commonwealth as former colonies, taking a lead from Barbados, loose the shackles of British sovereignty.

What could this mean for the UK? Cut off from our nearest neighbours, we already struggle to exert significant influence at an international level. The fabled ‘pork markets’ of China and other hyped-up trade deals have failed to generate the lucrative returns promised by Brexiteers. A generation of young people denied opportunities afforded by Erasmus+ will demand its reinstatement along with freedom of movement.

The Labour party must therefore play catch-up with a public who increasingly favour rejoining the EU. Cooperation with Scottish, Welsh and Irish independence parties will be necessary for a functional government (with a possible referendum on Irish reunification and a new Scottish independence referendum) and this will come with pro-EU conditions.

The path to rejoining will be slow, not least because the bloc will be more cohesive, and so less inclined to entertain an unreliable and temperamental partner. A Labour government’s first task must be to rebuild trust. Appointments to key positions such as Europe minister will be hugely important.

By 2037, most Brexit harms could be undone – for one, the inappropriately named Windsor Framework could be replaced with a new St Brigid’s Framework, in honour of the patron saint who supported abortion on demand (and could turn water into beer!). We would be back in the customs union and single market, Erasmus+ and Creative Europe. Newry and Dundalk would be named joint European Capitals of Culture. We would regain key roles within Horizon research programmes. Furthermore, Labour could lead the way on creating safe and legal routes for all those seeking sanctuary across Europe, thereby ending the obsession with small boats, floating prisons and deportation flights for good, setting new European and international humanitarian standards.

Julie Ward is a former Labour MEP for North West England

 Keir Mather MP on industrial strategy

If Labour earns the right to govern for 13 years, we will have the opportunity to implement a modern industrial strategy to build economic growth, protect UK interests and enable British firms to compete on the world stage.

Getting there will require genuine partnership between business, government and trade unions. A Labour government will build this new consensus on deeds, not words.

Reforming business rates and the apprenticeship levy will allow firms to play their part, investing more in innovation and equipping workers with futureproofed skills. The New Deal for Working People will empower trade unions to fight for growth that is both pro-business and pro-worker. Our Green Prosperity Plan and commitment to make, sell and buy more in Britain will enable a Labour government to rebuild our industrial base, win the race to net zero, and protect our energy supply from autocrats.

Right now, UK firms are suffering under a rudderless government too weak to deal with labour shortages, supply chain disruption and price hikes that define the cost-of-doing-business crisis. In 13 years, Labour could offer an antidote to this chaos, providing UK PLC with a long term industrial strategy, regulatory certainty, and reassurance that we share their ambition to lead the world in green investment, AI and advanced manufacturing.

The opportunities for business in the next two decades are Britain’s for the taking. It will be the duty of a Labour government to seize them.

Keir Mather is the Labour MP for Selby and Ainsty

Illustrations: Matt Holland

The post Britain 2037 – Vol. 2 first appeared on Fabian Society.