Class of 2010

Who are the new MPs we are about to send to Westminster? What are their political beliefs? What backgrounds do they come from? Could they work together in the event of a hung parliament? Although the next parliament will see an exceptionally large number of newcomers, we still know relatively little about the ‘class of 2010’.

To help us answer some of these questions ippr has conducted an online poll of Prospective Parliamentary Candidates from across the different parties. This excluded sitting MPs and included only those who had a serious chance of winning – either in safe seats for their party or in marginal contests.

Our first finding was that if PR is the deal breaker in a hung parliament, both David Cameron and Gordon Brown will find it difficult to persuade their backbenchers to back electoral reform. All of the Conservative PPCs polled supported first past the post, while only 10 per cent of Labour PPCs backed PR or a mixed system as used in Scotland and Wales.

On the PPCs’ ideological positions the survey found that Labour and Lib Dem PPCs have much more in common with each other than either set of candidates do with the Conservatives. This confirms that a coalition between Labour and the Lib Dems would be much easier to hold together politically than an arrangement between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.

Our survey found that:

• Most Labour and Lib Dem PPCs agree that government should redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Only 30 per cent of surveyed Conservative PPCs supported income redistribution and 47 per cent opposed it. Labour PPCs are slightly to the left of Lib Dem PPCs on questions of redistribution and the welfare state: 67 per cent of Labour PPCs against 33 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs agree strongly that government should redistribute income.
• Labour and Lib Dem PPCs are less in favour of tougher sentences for criminal offences than Conservative PPCs, with Lib Dem PPCs being the most liberal.
• 59 per cent of Conservative PPCs disagreed with the statement that too many people’s lives would be damaged by cutting benefits, compared to just 7 per cent of Labour and 17 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs.
• 70 per cent of Conservatives agreed that the welfare state ‘crowds out’ civic endeavour and community self-help, while most Labour and Lib Dem PPCs disagreed.
• 91 per cent of Lib Dem PPCs agreed that we have been too reliant on the City for growth and should curb its role, compared to 44 per cent of Labour PPCs. Most Conservative PPCs opposed action to reduce the role of the City in the economy.
• Lib Dem PPCs are the least interventionist on foreign policy, with 91 per cent wanting Britain to stop trying to be a major military force in the world, compared to just 27 per cent of Labour and 6 per cent of Tory PPCs.
• 59 per cent of Tory PPCs think the EU is a threat to the UK’s national sovereignty, whereas Labour and Lib Dem PPCs overwhelmingly reject this.
• Whereas all Labour and Lib Dem PPCs agree that climate change is real and man made and requires major social changes, only 53 per cent of Tory PPCs believe this.

Finally, in terms of how the candidates were selected, we found that in most cases the candidates were locally based or had some local roots. There was little evidence of lots of London-based candidates being parachuted into constituencies. What is more noticeable about the selection process is how few people are involved in it: 75 per cent of these PPCs were chosen by fewer than 200 party members and 28 per cent by fewer than 100. The only party to have broken out of those small numbers were the Conservatives – many of whom had been selected in primary contests.

The survey is here and the press release here.

Rick Muir

Back to work?

With the latest figures showing a rise in unemployment – but a fall in the number claiming unemployment benefit – it seems like there is an opportunity to momentarily shift discussion away from the Clegg bounce and leadership debates and towards welfare policy. So far the parties have largely focused on making sure voters know that they will be tough on welfare, but with unemployment at 2.5 million, this is insufficient.

Lots of similarities between Labour and Conservative welfare policies are evident from the manifestos, but also some important differences, in approach as well as policy.

There are similarities in the sound-bites: Labour aims for a ‘swift return to employment’ and the Conservatives want to ‘get Britain working again’. And in the headlines: both main parties are keen to offer more targeted and personalised support, focus attention on job creation and prevent a scarred generation of young people. There are similarities in flagship programmes, namely Labour’s Flexible New Deal and the Conservatives’ single Work Programme. And both parties talk of toughening up the system with proposals on sanctions and benefit cheats.

But there are also significant differences. Labour’s manifesto commitments include an extension to the Young Person’s Guarantee, a better off in work guarantee, a living wage in Whitehall, and rises in the National Minimum Wage. And the narrative of a ‘big society’ that underpins Tory proposals to tackle welfare dependency highlights different roles for the state, welfare to work organisations and individuals.

What of the Liberal Democrats? Well, their manifesto commitments on welfare are noticeably thin. There is a focus on supply-side measures such as job creation and especially green jobs, but proposals to tackle unemployment are mostly absent.

It is clear that many challenges remain around welfare reform. Amongst the most significant is personalising welfare. Emerging findings from ippr’s innovative Now it’s Personal research are highlighting the need for interventions that don’t just isolate employment support and that recognise a wider set of needs such as childcare and transport. Also needed are advisers who have good knowledge of the local environment and in particular good relationships with local employers and training providers. In addition a focus on supporting sustainable job outcomes with more support for people once they are in work to manage the transition as well as a volatile and flexible labour market.

A tougher welfare policy may seem like the right tactic to appeal to voters, but with 2.5 million people currently unemployed and with public sector cuts still to come, this will not be enough. More radical change is needed for the welfare system to be genuinely responsive, personalised and effective.

Dalia Ben-Galim

Repairing Broken Britain?

The ubiquitous Broken Britain theme has played strongly in this election so far and with good reason. As we know from Ipsos Mori, increasing numbers of the population think the country has become a worse place to live in. We can argue, using statistics, to the contrary, but the perception still remains.

Arguments on tackling poverty in the election so far have pitted Labour’s wealth distribution strategy against Tory plans to tackle the ‘underlying causes of crime’. Few would argue the balance between these approaches is right at present. But if David Cameron is arguing that mending Broken Britain is a serious alternative to poverty reduction measures, what does the manifesto tell us about how they will achieve this? And what might it cost?

Let’s take just one of these underlying causes of poverty – drug addiction. After over 10 years of government investment in drug treatment we have lower waiting lists and dramatically more people in treatment, but the problem has not improved.

The sharp rise in heroin and crack use over the last few decades has been contained but use of other drugs such as cocaine is increasing. Cocaine is more popular in the UK than in almost any other European country. In one area of London an astonishing two thirds of child care proceedings are now related to parental drug misuse, placing family courts and social services under huge strain.

Getting people into treatment was just the first challenge. Moving people into recovery and keeping them there should now be the primary goal. So what do the parties propose?

Labour plans to ‘switch investment towards programmes which are shown to sustain drug-free lives and reduce crime’. This cost-neutral pledge fails to acknowledge the changes needed at a local level to ensure housing is available for recovering drug users, along with more intensive treatment, peer support and access to employment.

The Liberal Democrats make pledges on respecting scientific advice and moving drug users out of prison into secure accommodation where appropriate, but similarly don’t take up the urgent challenges outlined above.

The Conservative pledge is more limited still. Drugs featured heavily in the Tories’ account of a Broken Britain – IDS’s now famous epiphany took place on an estate outside Glasgow decimated by heroin use. The manifesto pledge consists simply of adapting an existing provision – Drug Rehabilitation Orders – by linking them to abstinence-based treatment. There is no evidence that this form of treatment is any more or less effective than other forms of treatment – it depends on what is most suitable for the individual. And because it is more expensive we have to assume it will result in funding being switched from existing community programmes.

It turns out the Conservative pledge to tackle ‘underlying causes’ is, in this case at least, just a small variation on the system we already have and there is little to suggest it will have any impact on reducing poverty. In which case the Tories have a problem. With so much staked on the Broken Britain argument people will expect to see results if they win power.

Tackling poverty is not all about money, but cash helps. The Big Society idea of civic renewal could at its most ambitious help create a stronger sense of purpose which is lacking in many lives. But for those the Tories have classed as part of Broken Britain, who aren’t willing or able to engage in society, it is no substitute for providing the housing or jobs they need to get back on track.

Clare McNeil

Labour and income inequality

The gap between rich and poor in the UK has widened since 1997, according to the results of a recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It found that income inequality in 2007-08 was higher than when Labour came to power and ‘higher than in any year since at least the 1950s’.

On the face of it, this is unwelcome reading for Labour supporters. What is the point of 13 years of Labour Government if it cannot prevent widening income inequalities?

Dig deeper into the IFS’s analysis, however, and it becomes clear that the gap between rich and poor has widened despite the Government’s efforts, not because of them. In the 1980s, when government policies seemed designed to benefit the rich, income inequality increased by an enormous amount. The increase in income inequality under Labour has been far smaller because changes to the tax and benefit system since 1997 have favoured poorer households at the expense of richer ones.

But what is missing from this analysis is an understanding of the causes of the increases in inequality that have occurred before the effects of government policy are taken into account. Throughout the last three decades, it seems, underlying inequality has been increasing. In the 1980s, this was exacerbated by government policy; over the last 13 years it has been mitigated by it. But under Conservative and Labour governments alike, it has remained a powerful trend.

There are a host of explanations for this trend, including globalisation, technological change and the dominance of the financial sector in the UK economy and we need to develop a full understanding of them because – as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have demonstrated so conclusively in their book The Spirit Level – greater inequality leaves everyone worse off.

So, while it is right to challenge the main political parties during the election campaign on how their tax and benefit policies might affect income inequality, it is perhaps more important to ask them what they intend to do about the growing disparity in pre-tax incomes. If they are, to quote Lord Mandelson, ‘intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich’, they shouldn’t be.

Tony Dolphin

There are better things to tax than jobs

So the first big argument is over tax. Labour argues there will have to be a small increase in National Insurance contributions, as well as spending cuts, to help reduce the deficit. The Conservatives disagree, arguing that increasing NI contributions (which they describe as a tax on jobs) will be damaging and that they can close the deficit simply through spending cuts.

On the immediate row over National Insurance contributions, I guess Labour are right. Any incoming government will have to raise money quickly in order to get the deficit under control and it seems sensible to do this through a mixture of tax rises and spending cuts - to do it all through spending cuts alone would have a severe impact on public services and the wider economy. National Insurance also has the advantage of being a fair tax which varies according to the amount you earn. It’s not perfect - we already tax jobs quite heavily - but it’s the fairest way for a quick fix.

But while raising NI is necessary for achieving a short term goal, it falls woefully far of the bar as a long term policy on tax. Such a narrow debate misses the broader problem – that for the last few years Britain’s tax system has not raised enough to fund quality public services, that it disproportionately hits the poor, and that it lets important areas such as wealth and carbon emissions off the hook.

A more radical approach would be for politicians to try to tackle these bigger problems. It would shift away from taxing low and middle incomes (effectively a tax on people’s hard work and effort), towards taxing wealth (much of the wealth that is generated in Britain is based on little more than the luck of rising land and property prices and inheritance from family members).

In my opinion, an ambitious long-term pledge on tax might include:

1. A tax that captured a portion of rising land values and property prices
2. A 50% income tax for pay slips over £100,000 a year
3. A financial transactions tax or ‘Tobin Tax’
4. A tax that penalised carbon emissions

These would all take a while to put in place, and until that time NI will have to be raised to plug the deficit. But they are a more sustainable solution to funding the investment this country needs, and a far fairer way of doing it.

Jonathan Clifton

Immigration in the Election 3: Labour

Gordon Brown's speech on immigration last week was a call for mainstream political unity on an issue which can too often turn nasty (particularly in election years), a defence of the policy framework put in place by Labour, and a strong critique of the Conservative commitment to cap immigration.

Labour are working hard to position themselves as tough on immigration, in the face of a public and media debate that has often portrayed them as a ‘soft touch’. In fact, Labour have a good story to tell on immigration policy to those who are concerned about control.

No system is perfect, least of all in immigration, but the Points-Based System is a pretty effective way of deciding which migrants should be able to come to the UK to work, based on the needs of the economy; the Government have more-or-less got on top of the asylum issue; and the new UK Border Agency is presiding over an immigration system that is more functional and controlled than it has been for many years. Even the decision to open up the UK’s labour market to workers from the new EU countries, which led to a massive and largely unpredicted flow of migrants from eastern Europe (and considerable political backlash), has had few negative impacts and many positive ones.

Labour’s failings on immigration have been of politics, not of policy, in recent years. It’s worth noting three main political problems:

• Labour ministers have been reluctant to talk openly about the very real challenges and opportunities presented by immigration, which has added to a sense that the issue is somehow ‘off limits’ and ceded the space to those who hold extreme views. So, it is welcome that Gordon Brown is tackling the issue head on in this election campaign.
• Labour have allowed the political debate on this issue to become highly polarised, because they have not been able to develop a balanced and moderate narrative that occupies the middle ground and can convince the majority of voters. So, it was good to see Gordon Brown emphasising the (considerable) degree of policy consensus on the issue which now exists.
• Labour have too often tried to solve a political problem with a slew of policy announcements and changes. All too often, this only reinforces the perception that the immigration system is broken. So, although Gordon Brown was right to defend the policy framework that Labour have put in place, he may have made his political message less effective by also using his speech to announce or re-announce a range of relatively minor tweaks to the system.

Sarah Mulley

Fixing our 'unfriendly' family culture

There’s a line in the Conservative’s Draft Manifesto that caught my eye. It says “Britain is one of the least family-friendly countries in the developed world. This will change with a Conservative government.”

It’s a phase that has every chance of making it into the final version. The Conservatives know that on many indicators – relationship breakdown, risky behaviour by teenagers, the emotional well-being of children – Britain does not score well.

But it’s not altogether clear that they understand how to improve Britain’s family-friendliness. Most of the trends associated with Britain’s poor family record have been shaped by rampant individualism and consumerism, our tendency to act selfishly and fetishise making money over making time for one another.

Labour’s response in government has been to launch a thousand policy initiatives, to make it a bit easier for families to live within this culture, rather than challenging the culture itself. But this is really a sticking plaster approach – it doesn’t address the bigger problem.

Could politicians do more to make us influence our unfriendly family culture? Here are three things politicians could do during the election to make a start:

1. Politicians need to talk about why family life matters. It’s important not just because it produces better children but because relationships sustain us all.
2. Policies need to address the real issues. The problem with the debate about whether or not you support marriage through the tax system is that it takes an important issue – relationship breakdown – and reduces it to a discussion about financial transactions. Relationships aren’t breaking down because people can’t see the monetary benefit of staying together.
3. Finally, politicians could make family life more visible in politics. I don’t mean by parading your children (or even your pregnant wife) but by demonstrating that time spent with your family matters, by bringing people into the next cabinet who are allowed to work part-time to balance their work and family life and by contemplating better ways to fitting the demands of a job to family life, rather than vice versa. A new cabinet with job share ministers? Now there’s a thought.

Lisa Harker, co-director, ippr

Why might we want a Child Poverty Act?

The Child Poverty Act, which commits future governments to meeting Labour’s goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020, received Royal Assent yesterday. But why might we want an Act of this kind?

The obvious answer is that ending child poverty is the right thing to do and making it law will ensure the goal is met. But the greatest progress on child poverty was made in the first part of the 2000s, before Labour had even thought about enacting a child poverty law. Tony Blair’s pledge to end child poverty was made in 1999, yet the idea of enshrining it in law wasn’t aired until Gordon Brown’s 2008 conference speech. So why do we need a law now?

Child poverty rates began to creep up after 2004, which reflected a slackening off in investment in anti-poverty measures. So perhaps Labour felt that it needed a law to make itself put its investment back on track. Let’s hope not – it would be a slightly odd way of going about things. And it hasn’t worked, as the meagre child poverty measures in Wednesday’s Budget showed.

A more plausible explanation is that this is a political move, because it forces the Conservatives to stick to Labour’s poverty goals. The Tories have come round to the idea of relative poverty but often argue that poverty is about much more than income. Should they form the next government, they may prefer not to have their hands tied by an Act that so explicitly prioritises income-based measures of poverty.

The other view is that the government wanted to look like it was doing something on child poverty at a time when the figures were, and still are, going in the wrong direction yet it was difficult, and still is, to find the cash to put things back on track. Drafting a bill and steering it through Parliament is a lot cheaper than putting an extra £4 billion into tax credits, which is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies said it would cost to half child poverty by this year.

It’s important not to get too cynical and forget the very impressive work that this government has done in tackling poverty, particularly among children and pensioners. But if you set yourself challenging and important targets, you have to do everything in your power to meet them. Now that we’ve got a Child Poverty Act, we should use it at every opportunity to hold the government, now and in the future, to account – but ending child poverty takes real action not just legislation.

Kayte Lawton, research fellow, ippr

Sloganeering?

So now deciding how to vote all becomes a lot clearer. By unveiling their official campaign slogan today the Liberal Democrats have completed the set - and the choice is (between the three parties at least)….

Conservative – 2010: a year of change

Labour – A future fair for all

Liberal Democrat – Change that works for you, building a fairer Britain

You can see a pattern here. Change and Fairness – with the Lib Dems claiming, in typical third party fashion, some might say, that they can deliver both.

Change was always going to be an obvious word for the Conservatives after 13 years of Labour in power – but their change message lacks much in the way of sunny optimism. Obama coupled his ‘Change we can believe in’ with the up-beat 'Yes we can'. Some of the more modernising strategists close to Cameron, in particular Steve Hilton, would probably like more positivity, but other voices – which seem to be prevailing at present – think that lacks credibility given the economic crisis.

The other problem with espousing change is that sooner or later people ask for some detail on the changes you have in mind. The Obama slogan cleverly suggested that his change had inbuilt credibility. But a demanding British electorate seem to want more policy detail.

With hard times ahead, the Tories might also have thought along Lib Dem lines of coupling change with a fairness message. Some sense that we are all in this together might help to reassure a nervous electorate, who seem to have become more concerned in recent weeks about the impact – and fairness – of the Conservatives’ approach to tackling the deficit. Instead their other slogan – things can’t go on like this – is more of a negative one (and slightly despairing?)
Not that going negative is necessarily bad tactics, of course. It was not any great new vision that underpinned Mrs Thatcher’s victory in 1979 it was the resonant: ‘Labour isn’t working.’

2010 feels more like 1979 than 1997, with the economy in such poor shape, so there’s no talk now of New this and that or things only getting better. We wish! But it is interesting that over the last few months change suddenly seems less appealing – while fairness in difficult times has more traction. Something for Tory strategists to ponder, perhaps?

Tim Finch, Director of Strategic Communications, ippr