Leader: It is not “socialism” to say we are facing market failure on a grand scale

By refusing to accept that the market is not working for the majority, the Tories have put themselves at odds with the public.

For decades after the Thatcher revolution of the 1980s, politicians of the left and the right put their faith in a new economic paradigm as the guarantee of prosperity for the majority. Today, after the “Great Contraction” of 2008-2009, they can no longer do so with the same confidence. Economic growth in Britain has returned after three years of stagnation but it is forecast that real wages will not increase until 2015 and will not return to their pre-crash levels until 2023. A broken energy market, in which six companies control 98 per cent of supply, has left 4.5 million people in fuel poverty. Extortionate rents have forced millions to rely on housing benefit. By any measure, this is market failure on a grand scale.

The living standards crisis is a challenge for all political parties but most of all for the Conservatives, the natural defenders of capitalism. After Labour pledged to freeze gas and electricity prices until 2017 and to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020, David Cameron’s party had a chance to offer its own intelligent and imaginative solutions. But at its conference in Manchester, it retreated to its comfort zone. Aided by an ever more partisan right-wing press, speaker after speaker derided Mr Miliband as a “socialist” and a “Marxist”, as if concern at falling wages were comparable to a belief in world revolution.

In doing so, they failed to recognise that when Margaret Thatcher assailed her left-wing opponents in the 1980s, she did so in the confidence that her free-market policies retained popular support. Mr Cameron does not enjoy that luxury. Polls show that roughly two-thirds of voters support a 50p top income-tax rate, a mansion tax, stronger workers’ rights, a living wage and the renationalisation of the railways and the privatised utilities. If Mr Miliband is a socialist, so is much of the public.

The most unintentionally revealing moment of the conference came when George Osborne rebuked the Labour leader for suggesting that “the cost of living was somehow detached from the performance of the economy”. It was a remark that betrayed Mr Osborne’s failure to appreciate that the crisis is not merely cyclical (a problem exacerbated by his strategy of austerity), but structural. It was in 2003, long before the crash, that wages for 11 million earners began to stagnate.

Aside from a pledge to freeze fuel duty until 2015, the Tories had nothing significant to say in Manchester on the question of living standards. The most important announcements were the early introduction of the Help to Buy scheme and Mr Osborne’s commitment to achieve a Budget surplus by the end of the next parliament, both of which risk further depressing incomes. By inflating demand without addressing the fundamental problem of supply, Help to Buy will make housing less affordable, while Mr Osborne’s promise of a balanced Budget is likely to be met by imposing even greater cuts to benefits and services for the poorest. The Chancellor’s ideological fixation with the public finances ignores the greater crisis in voters’ finances.

On the fringes of the party, there is much good thinking. The Conservative campaign group Renewal, which aims to broaden the party’s appeal among northern, working-class and ethnic-minority voters, published a pledge card calling for the building of a million new homes over the course of the next parliament, a significant increase in the minimum wage, a “cost of living test” for all legislation and action against “rip-off companies”. However, there is as yet little sign that the Conservative leadership is prepared to embrace the kind of reformist, centrist agenda that secured Angela Merkel’s re-election in Germany.

The Tories’ error – compounded by the Prime Minister in his conference speech on Wednesday 2 October –has been to mistake the views of the strident right-wing press for those of the majority of the British public and to dismiss sensible calls for a more responsible capitalism as unreconstructed socialism.

George Osborne and Michael Gove listen to speeches at the Conservative conference in Manchester. Photograph: Getty Images.

This article first appeared in the 07 October 2013 issue of the New Statesman, The last days of Nelson Mandela

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.