| The 'real' Middle England: Lessons for the Left |
|
Monday 22nd March 2010 In the run up to the general election, all the major political parties will set out to capture the crucial swing voters of “Middle England”. But who does this group really consist of and how have they fared under the Labour government? As part of the Fabian Society’s pre-election ‘Causes to Fight For’ series, Housing Minister John Healey argued that we need to reach out to the “real” middle Britain, the seven million or so families who live on or around median household earnings of £22,000 a year. It is this often misrepresented group, he told an audience at Congress House, which had been hardest hit during the recession. He was joined by Paul Nowak, Head of the Organisation and Services Department at the TUC, and the debate was chaired by Nick Timmins, Public Policy Editor at the Financial Times.Paul Nowak began by emphasising what he called the “brutal electoral arithmetic” that gave a tiny number of swing voters in marginal constituencies the power to decide the election. Labour must therefore make its pitch to this mainstream majority, as elections were won or lost on the centre ground. However, we needed to be clearer about who “middle Britain” really were. The “real” middle Britain consisted of those families living in and around the full-time median household earnings of £22,000 a year. These people were less likely to have had a university education, were prone to spells of unemployment and often struggled to get a foothold on the property ladder. Nowak told the audience we needed to focus “relentlessly” on this middle Britain and the issues which concerned them most: housing, jobs, quality public services and a fairer tax system. In order to win the election and promote a sense of social solidarity during the tough times ahead, Labour had to rebuild the strong coalition between the middle and the bottom which helped create the welfare state 65 years ago and got Tony Blair elected in 1997. Nowak argued there was an appetite in the country for this “good society” and three-quarters of people believed the gap between rich and poor was too wide; Labour has nothing to fear from being bold and concentrating its efforts on building a progressive coalition for a fairer society and a stronger economy. John Healey agreed that, as in previous recessions, the people whose incomes had taken the biggest hit during the economic downturn were those in the middle, not those at the bottom. We sometimes had a distorted view of who middle Britain really represented, he said. Statistically speaking, our focus should be on the seven million families with household incomes between £14,500 and £33,500 a year. A town like Rotherham, he suggested, was more representative of middle Britain than Tunbridge Wells. Most of these people worked extremely hard and managed their finances right up to the margins. For this group, small changes to food or transport costs and utility bills could have a big impact on their monthly budgets. Recent studies had shown that it was this group that had been hardest hit by the recession and this group whose needs Labour must do more to address. However, the Government could be proud of what it had achieved over the past 13 years, and this group had also benefited the most from working tax credits and the national minimum wage. Yet it remained the case that many people were stuck in a “no man’s land” because they were not poor enough to claim benefits but not well-off enough to live comfortably. These families were likely to have their children living at home for longer yet few could afford to buy a house on the open market. Healey advocated the need for more affordable homes and to bring in more regulations to help those in private rented accommodation. A third of those living in social housing worked full time but still struggled to make ends meet. A progressive Labour government therefore must be ready to use the power of government to make things better for these people and Labour policies must reflect the values of hard work, fairness and independence that were at the heart of the real middle Britain, argued Healey. Nick Timmins then asked each of the panellists how the government’s plans would be affected by the need to reduce the deficit and the inevitable cuts in spending that might entail. Healey said we could not allow the debate to be dominated by the deficit and cuts when other factors would have a big part to play in tackling the national debt. The first was economic growth, which was the reason the government had stepped in when it did, resulting in far lower unemployment than predicted. Taxes would also have to rise, he conceded, but the biggest burden would fall on the top five per cent of earners. Yes, there would also need to be cutbacks in public spending but these would have been much greater if the government had not acted to get growth back into the economy, he argued. Paul Nowak agreed that the focus had to be on growing the economy and not making cuts but he was disappointed that the government had set a target of halving the deficit in the next four years. In terms of pubic sector spending it would be more useful to think about how we could deliver services more effectively than setting arbitrary figures, he argued. The minister was asked how his policies on housing would play in the 30 constituencies that would decide the election. Healey told the audience that he did not agree with a so-called “core vote strategy” and believed Labour must win the election with broad appeal. However he also said that Labour could not win the election without the support of its core vote and that although many people preferred Labour policies on affordable housing, these people were less likely to vote come election time. “I see this as essential,” he said, “In those 30 constituencies there are five, eight, even ten times more social housing tenants than the majority we’ve got to defend.” Both panellists were asked whether they thought tax credits were a sustainable tool for overcoming poverty. Nowak said employers themselves must take more responsibility as too many of them used tax credits as an excuse for low pay. We also needed to think about how we could raise wages, particularly in sectors like hospitality and retails which were low skilled and low paid. There was a clear role for unions here, he said, as well as “sector forums” where employees could air their grievances. Healey said there had been “a huge progressive shift” since 1997. When Labour took over it was legal to pay somebody £1 an hour but the national minimum wage, which the Tories had opposed, had made a big difference to people’s lives. Finally, the minister was asked by an audience member whether he really wanted Labour to win the election given the precarious state of the public finances the new administration would inherit. Healey said he badly wanted to win the election as there was a lot of work that needed to be finished. “I don’t think many of the most vulnerable people can afford a Tory government,” he said. This was particularly true of social housing tenants who, he said, would face higher rent and short term tenancy agreements if the Conservatives got in. The electorate faced a stark choice between a government which viewed the state of the public finances as a challenge and a party which saw it as an opportunity to introduce “slash and burn” policies that the country would take a generation to recover from. 
|
Causes to Fight For: Fabian Election Special
