Basic Income is an existential question for Labour

Reading Stephen Bush's article Does the Basic Income work? I was struck by his preamble that:

The difficulty with the “what do you think about basic income?” question is that it’s a little bit to being asked “what do I think about tax relief?”

For me, Basic Income challenges how the Labour Party defines itself in the modern world.

What I want to raise here is the function of money, the nature of work and the defining of value. If Labour are to become relevant to the majority of the electorate then these issues need to be wrestled with.

In the real economy, money acts as the lubricant for human interaction and activity. The electorate supports the principle that money should reward activity. Working Tax Credits follows this principle as participation in work is rewarded. This also fits squarely with Labour Party traditions which supports work and activity.

Basic Income challenges this relationship by disconnecting activity from reward. This places it in opposition to where the electorate are. As Nick Clegg's recent memoirs show, welfare could be cut without thought to societal consequences precisely because George Osborne could frame the cuts as fitting a principle.

As for the nature of work, many feminists will argue that work is exponential but reward is limited to what society judges valuable whereas predominantly female areas such as childcare or care professions are devalued. Those with experiences of the charitable and voluntary sectors will also point to large amounts of activity that has societal benefits that are not rewarded financially. As an example, unpaid care is estimated to be valued in excess of £200bn based on the national minimum wage.

To argue that Basic Income is required to compensate for an absence of work is essentially a male perspective which ignores a substantial part of the real economy. Work is always available because it is about human activity and interaction. Basic Income is therefore positioning itself for compensating for a lack of rewarded work.

This poses a challenge for the Labour Party. Basic Income is an acquiescence to the logic of the free market determining value and merely offers compensation to that logic. Isn't this what New Labour was criticised for? And lets be honest, a UK economy underpinned by Basic Income has the potential to expand the amount of unpaid work through devaluing contributions which will fall disproportionately on women.

Can a Labour Party committed to values such as rewarding work, equality and building strong communities really be comfortable with adopting a policy of Basic Income?

I think not.

Instead, a radical Labour Party would work with its traditions and the principles of the British public to expand and reward activity. This is particularly important for those areas of activity that are undervalued or just unpaid. Tackling structural changes in work such as the 'gig economy' does require building additional buffers that support that workforce but such buffers need the support of the electorate.

At its essence, any debate about Basic Income is about the ambitions of the Labour Party as a progressive influence on British life. It can cement itself in the electorate's eyes as the compensation party by adopting Basic Income as a policy or it has to set out a programme that rewards contributions to society whilst protecting those that cannot contribute. Only one of these is acceptable to the British public.

Convenient Conditional Solidarity

If there is one thing that worries me particularly about Jeremy Corbyn and his core team is that it appears the notion of solidarity is driven by whether it is convenient to their cause.


The recent contrasting statements on Labour Party staff is a case in point (bold my emphasis):

Exhibit A (Jeremy Corbyn 23rd August 2016)

I am not telling you anything new when I say that working in politics can be stressful at times. However this has been exacerbated at times by attacks on individuals or groups of staff in the national media. In my own view, that is totally unacceptable. It is only right that elected politicians recognise that as party staff, you do not have the right of reply in the media and often have to operate in a political landscape over which you have limited control.

You therefore must not be used as a political football by anyone in the party. I hope you all feel that if you are put in difficult or unacceptable circumstances, you can raise the issue with your line manager, other senior members of staff, or your trade union representatives.

Exhibit B (John McDonnell 25th August 2016)

The decision by Labour party officials to suspend the bakers' union leader, Ronnie Draper, from the party and deny him a vote in Labour's leadership election over unidentified social media posts is shocking, and appears to be part of a clear pattern of double standards.

Unfortunately for McDonnell, it appears that Draper has fallen foul of the NEC ruling on proscribed words when he tweeted about "deselecting traitors" on 29th June 2016.

The NEC, as Iain McNicol pointed out to McDonnell, is the elected body which determines how Labour Party rules are applied. It is not in the gift of party officials who funnily enough have "limited control" of the "political landscape". McNicol in his role as General Secretary of the Labour Party is defending his staff from being a "political football"

What is striking about John McDonnell's intervention in what is being described as #LabourPurge2 is that he cannot find solidarity with workers in his own party. Instead because they are not aligned with his own interests, they are accused of "double standards".

If we reflect on the task at hand of the understaffed and underfunded compliance unit within Labour HQ, they are operating to arbitrary simple rules as laid down by the NEC to ensure that, as far as possible, everyone voting is a supporter of the Labour Party's aims and values. Given that last year's leadership election saw boasts ranging from Tories to Socialist Worker Party members that they had participated, a tightening up of the process isn't unexpected to manage an electorate of 600,000.

The problem is that simple rules can make for crude results. This is most obviously seen in soft left floating between the Green Party and the Labour Party as there are natural overlaps in values here. Tweeting support for a Green candidate in a previous election shouldn't automatically result in exclusion. Irony and nuanced opinion can also be crushed under the simplistic application of the rules. I have sympathy for those caught up by such rules who should be welcomed into the party.

I maintain solidarity with party workers who have a thankless task applying the will of the NEC.

While the rules are simplistic, I don't consider the NEC decisions unfair given the task at hand and the undercurrent of nastiness that surrounds the party currently. Learning lessons around making the process fairer to encourage inclusion whilst maintaining the values of the party is something the NEC needs to look at after September.

I don't have much sympathy for Ronnie Draper. It is hard to reconcile Labour values such as solidarity with tweeting about "deselecting traitors".

Solidarity requires the gift of support without expectation of reciprocation as well as recognising common cause. If you tweet about traitors then you're denying both of those attributes. The point of the Labour Party is that it is a broad coalition where people come together under common cause even if they disagree on the methodology to achieve it. Strength comes from being able to vigorously argue opinions without casting aspersions on others motivations.

If you attack MPs or councillors or members for being 'traitors' then what you are saying is that you only offer support if they agree with your opinions - it is entirely conditional. That's not solidarity. That's not the behaviour of a broad coalition. That's not seeking common cause. That's not the behaviour of a social movement.

My question to John McDonnell is how do you expect me to have solidarity with Ronnie Draper when he doesn't have solidarity with others?

The problem with such behaviour is that there is always the next 'traitor' to identify. We see that in the variety of abuse sent on social media whether misogynistic, homophobic, ableist, antisemitic, Islamophobic etc. All these are deemed acceptable if against the 'cause'.

Far from being a social movement, this behaviour will exclude and narrow itself further. If you're queer, disabled, female, Jewish, Muslim, black, foreign then you'll be asking yourself when do I become the traitor if my viewpoint doesn't fit?

The thing with solidarity is that it requires generosity of spirit. Something that appears missing from the current atmosphere. Instead there is a clear disconnect between the words of inclusion and the actions of exclusion that come from the current leadership and its more vocal supporters. Such actions have consequences which includes how rules are applied in leadership elections.

Far from being "double standards" as John McDonnell claims, the #LabourPurge2 is entirely consistent with the lack of generosity that has come with the convenient conditional solidarity that McDonnell and Corbyn offer.

Funny that.

Resolution 2 what does it mean?

In conjunction with the senior management team

This is really expressing a subjugation to the senior management team and as such is the most important clause in this rambling nonsense. The complaint made on January 2nd 2016 from Sara Ryan to Southern Health's Governors details a series of failings by the executive board/senior management team. It placed a duty on the governors to act in accordance with their responsibilities:

As an NHS foundation trust governor, you hold your foundation trust’s non-executive directors to account for the performance of the board and represent the interests of members and the public. [Monitor 2014]

This requires the governors to act independently in a scrutiny role. Instead, they have 'agreed' to collude with the executive board/senior management team according to this clause.

the Trust will explore with local Members of Parliament

Note this has nothing to do with the governors. This is purely a dialogue between senior management and MPs. The word 'explore' here means we will undertake a ritual bollocking from powerless MPs in order to make them feel a little bit important.

with the aim of requesting the Secretary of State for Health to further investigate

Again nothing to do with the governors. This part of the resolution has three separate indicators of action without there being any necessity for action on anyone's part: aim; requesting; further investigate. That such non-action clauses follows the ritual bollocking from MPs underlines the powerlessness of that ritual to achieve change.

the change in the organisational paradigm of the NHS and the Trust necessary

Again, what does this have to do with the governors? This resolution isn't asking for any change in the practice of Southern Health. Nor is it asking for any change in the 'organisational paradigm' (whoever thought that was an appropriate phrase is a delusional cockwomble) but merely that Jeremy Hunt reflects on said paradigm. It is passive in voice while attempting a slight of hand.

to enable the creation of a no-blame management culture

This is possibly the only honest part of this resolution: stop blaming us. This is very much the language of Jeremy Hunt being used so it suggests some possible collusion between the Department of Health and Southern Health. Which further begs the question about the usage of 'requesting' in this resolution. Fortunately for the senior management team, their governors already appear to believe in a no-blame/no-accountability culture.

and the achievement of a cost-effective, high quality, customer-driven world class standard integrated health service

The only surprise is that '7 day' wasn't including in this specious ending. Was this copied and pasted out of the 2015 Conservative manifesto? Was this meant to be a rousing ending so that everyone could wave their bunting as if they were listening to Jerusalem at the Last Night of the Proms? Gawd knows what it has to do with the duties and responsibilities of being an NHS Foundation Trust governor.

Not a single thing within this resolution has anything to do with the board of governors. Not that there are any actions within it that compel Southern Health to change anything. If anything did occur then it will be the result of external agency (MPs, Secretary of State etc). This resolution demonstrates that no part of Southern Health's governance is capable of change or learning. It is completely broken.

To reiterate, in response to a detailed letter from Sara Ryan, the board of governors resolved to undertake two actions. The first was to talk to senior management. The second was to collude with senior management.

These people are both monstrous and dangerous. 

UPDATE: Perhaps the governors aren't completely broken. This motion sent to Sara Ryan if adopted at an extraordinary meeting would mean withdrawing the nonsensical resolutions in the previous letter. Lets hope so.

The Biting Dog and Corporate Gaslighting

This morning I woke up with a very vivid metaphor.

In my dream, I saw a beautiful dog distressed and biting itself/yelping with pain. On closer inspection, the dog had placed on its front leg a sock puppet made to look like another dog. Unable to remove the sock puppet, the dog was reduced to attacking itself causing both physical and psychological pain.

Like Androclus and the lion's paw, I befriend the dog and am able to remove the offending sock puppet. No longer distressed, the dog and I bond as healing takes place. 

This feels a remarkable metaphor given what happened to Sara Ryan yesterday. The leaking of an August 2012 document as part of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust's due diligence on their takeover of Ridgeway in Oxfordshire. To quote Sara:

A Quality and Safety Review, conducted as part of the Governance Work Stream. That details lack of clarity in care plans, risk assessments not updated or appropriate, issues with RiO, lack of assessment from the wider team, dirt, lack of maintenance, crap about Mental Capacity stuff, and so on. And so on.

Everything that contributed to the death of Connor Sparrowhawk was known before Southern Health took over the site and its services. And this document, circulated at executive level, was kept from the police, the coroner, the Inquest, the auditors, the Care Quality Commission, NHS Improvement, NHS England and the Department of Health it appears. Certainly none of these NHS bodies would want to admit they knew this document existed.

We also have the testimony of Lesley Stevens for the corporate body of Southern Health at last year's Inquest.

In that testimony, in response to a question from Adam Samuel re the staffing levels at STATT where Connor was detained, Stevens replied "well we make savings where we have to make them".

The jury then asked two significant questions that directly relate to this latest leaked document. The first asked what work had been undertaken in the 18 months leading up to Southern Health's takeover of Ridgeway. Stevens responded that there was a great deal of due diligence done by Southern Health ahead of takeover and that the Quality Director spent a lot of time in STATT. The follow-up question asked whether any of that work raised alarm bells. Stevens replied "not at STATT".

Despite knowing that the staffing and governance at Ridgeway was poor, the corporate executive at Southern Health not only pushed on with their takeover, they reduced staffing without resolving any of the issues raised by their own due diligence. This isn't just neglect, it is wilful disinterest in the safety of patients. This is corporate manslaughter territory and the police need to not only reopen the investigation but aggressively interrogate Southern Health's IT systems for further evidence. The non-disclosure of this document demonstrates that they cannot trust the word of this NHS Trust.

The other issue here is the potential of perjury by Lesley Stevens at the Inquest. No alarm bells raised as a result of their 18 months of due diligence? It is an incredulous claim.

And this is the sock puppet of corporate Southern Health: their incompetence.

No more will I collude with this. Instead lets call Southern Health what they are: Corporate Gaslighters.

Their actions are intentional and deliberate. Designed to confuse and create mitigation in the eyes of others through sowing doubt. By colluding with their sock puppet, we harm ourselves by not acknowledging the truth.

Sara and her partner Richard Huggins have written to Jim Mackie, David Behan, Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens to bring attention to this document and raise several questions/points. I would add these questions to Mackie, Behan, Hunt and Stevens - how long are you willing to tolerate an NHS Mental Health Trust abusing patients, families and staff through their gaslighting? How long are you willing to be gaslighted?

The dreadfulness of what has occurred is deeper and nastier than I thought possible. Resignations are inadequate. The corporate board at Southern Health need to be removed, prosecutions pursued and sine die written in regards to any further involvement with the NHS. Nothing less will do.

An Open Letter to Stephen Crabb

Dear Stephen,

congratulations on your appointment as the new Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

In the spirit of your opening statement to the House of Commons where you stated that you wanted to lead a new conversation with disabled people, charities and the wider community, I would like to offer some initial thoughts as you take on this complex department.

Take time to appreciate the Social Model of Disability

Although the Social Model has been around for a few decades, none of the major political parties has truly appreciated its radicalism and opportunities for policy design. The first articulation of the Social Model came from the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation who stated in 1975:

In our view it is society which disables physically impaired people. Disability is something imposed on top of our impairments by the way we are unnecessarily isolated and excluded from full participation in society.

In the forty years since then, the Social Model has broadened its scope as other disabled cohorts have identified with its basic principle that society creates barriers through how it is organised to turn people's impairments into disabilities and makes them vulnerable.

The UK's response was largely to compensate disabled people for the additional costs incurred. This included the John Major administration in 1992 introduced Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for working age adults (something that you and your fellow Conservatives should feel proud of).

Yet the nature of a compensatory system meant that disability benefits were exposed when the collapse in government income occurred in 2008. While I disagree with the reasoning employed by your predecessor in cutting certain disability benefits such as abolishing the Independent Living Fund or the arbitrary 20% reduction in the DLA replacement Personal Independence Payments (PIP), what it demonstrated was that the gains that disabled people achieved re the Social Model in the 80s and 90s were shallow rather than deep-rooted.

The opportunity available to you Stephen is to have that debate of what does good Social Model policy design and practice look like. Conservatives should be happy to embrace the principles of participation and controlling one's life that the Social Model demands that people with impairments should have. What objections can a Conservative have to helping people to help themselves?

The good thing about framing the discussion through the Social Model is that the conversation isn't dominated by amounts of spending but rather about outcomes. That will prove challenging to some of your current policies that act in opposition to the Social Model. Yet some disability campaigners and charities will also find that framing challenging.

What I found encouraging about your statement on Monday Stephen was that you stated that you were willing "to think beyond the artificial boundaries of organisations, sectors and Government Departments to an approach that is truly collaborative". Adopting a Social Model framework would enhance such thinking.

Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) has structural problems

I have no doubt that ESA was developed with good intentions. The problem is that good intentions doesn't always lead to good policy and ESA falls into that category. The decisions made in 2010 by your predecessor to roll out the Work Capability Assessment (WCA) exacerbated the flaws within the benefit.

The first issue with ESA was that it attempted to simplify by processing those with short-term health difficulties with those with long-term illnesses and/or impairments/disabilities. While it superficially made sense to have one process, the needs of these two cohorts are very different yet the system asks them to access the system as if they were to be long-term recipients of the benefit and all requiring to be assess for work capability. This doesn't just confuse the purpose of ESA, it generates unnecessary bureaucracy and backlogs.

For claimants with short-term health conditions preventing them working, they are signed off by their GP and those Doctor's Notes generates the ESA benefit for the period proscribed at assessment rate which is the same rate as Jobseekers Allowance (JSA). When the Doctor's Notes end, so does their access to ESA. This happens before any WCA is able to be scheduled. It would make sense to split ESA into a short-term benefit and a longer-term benefit. The short-term benefit (say a maximum of 6 months with mechanisms for extension/transfer into longer-term benefit) can be regulated by Doctor's Notes alone.

The longer-term benefit would allow you to address the second issue with ESA. Namely the artificial split between those in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and the Support Group who have longer-term health issues and/or impairments/disabilities.

On a practical level, the comparable off-flows into work from both the WRAG and the Support Group indicate that the current system isn't that good at identifying who is nearer the workplace. It also demonstrates that its not about the levels of impairments someone has but whether those impairments can be minimise by reasonable adaptation to allow access to the workplace. Individuals are better at judging the balance and support required than a tick-box exercise like the WCA.

I also have considerable sympathy with Matthew Oakley's argument in his recent paper Closing the Gap that the ESA Support Group provides fiscal support for more than just being out-of-work with a premium for the income penalty of longer-term health issues and/or impairments/disabilities which the WRAG currently provides. Instead of this additional payment being access through other parts of the benefit system or social care, it has been confusingly attached to ESA Support Group. I agree with Oakley that the distinction between WRAG and Support should be abolished with the payment rate set at WRAG level. This is partly why I hope that you will reconsider the £30 reduction in WRAG payments for new claimants from 2017.

The other reason to reconsider the £30 WRAG reduction is that the JSA rate is set as a temporary level assuming that people will move off that benefit quickly. With WRAG, the expectation is that it will take longer to support people into work hence the premium to reflect that length of time as well as their health and/or impairments. Even if the WRAG and Support split remains, lowering the WRAG payment by £30 risks exacerbating claimants health issues.

Further to this, the idea floated by Iain Duncan Smith on Sunday morning that more people would be moved into the Support Group as a result of this change to the WRAG in 2017 would imply parking more people on benefits. Given the criticisms of Incapacity Benefit for exactly those reasons, this policy feels rather confused. It certainly isn't compatible with the Social Model discussed earlier.

The third issue for ESA is the nature of the WCA itself. The design of the WCA means that in order for your impairments to be recognised, the claimant has to disabled themselves. It promotes anti-Social Model behaviour and discourages participation in society. The act of disabling is very painful and damaging especially for those with mental health problems and/or cognitive issues (autism/learning difficulties etc). It pushes people away from the workplace and towards greater health and social care needs.

There is an inherent contradiction between politicians wanting a system that supports what people can contribute whilst designing a policy that only recognises what they cannot contribute.

There is also an understandable rational response in not wanting to be constantly reassessed by the WCA given it is a painful process. Therefore taking risks and entering the workplace is undermined by the barrier that is the WCA if that risk is unsuccessful as you go back to the beginning of the assessment process.

A quick win for you Stephen in generating goodwill could be in offering, say, an 18 month period where if an ESA claimant in the WRAG or Support Group enters employment and then leaves it within that timescale, they would return to the WRAG or Support Group without another WCA. It would be an interesting trial as to whether that would make a difference to off-flows into work and encouraging risk and opportunity.

Ultimately ESA needs fundamental reform as its not fit for purpose.

Small concessions on the Bedroom Tax would go a long way

One of the qualities of your predecessor was that the DWP would fight every legal challenge beyond what many observers would call reasonable. A good example of this is this Court of Appeal judgment in January this year which your department is appealing to the Supreme Court.

What seems particularly bizarre is the DWP argument that discretionary payments covered the panic room costs. If the costs are to come from Whitehall whether in Housing Benefit payments or Discretionary Housing payments then for what is a small cohort, the reputational damage to your administration alone should outweigh any argument as to how the money travels from Whitehall to the local authority.

Equally the discrimination of the policy that disabled adults can have an extra bedroom for overnight carers but disabled children cannot have overnight carers just makes the DWP look petty and vindictive. It is inequitable as a policy and dropping the appeal to the Supreme Court would send a signal that your words in the Commons about recognising that "behind every statistic there is a human being" matches your deeds.

Another concession that would make a difference is exempting homes that have been specially adapted for someone's impairments. This is currently particularly cruel when an area doesn't have a wide mix of housing stock to choose from. It is also economically inefficient to have to adapt another property for the same needs when the provision already exists.

These three small concessions would make a significant difference to how you are perceived without incurring significant costs.

Closing the Gap is an honourable aim

If anything defines your predecessor, its the continued state of Universal Credit (UC) for which substantial time and resources have been devoted. Given the latest estimated costs of the programme are £15.8bn, the incentives to return to work have been downgraded by the Treasury to below the current Tax Credits system, and even if the complexity of the IT system can be resolved, the business case for UC looks extremely shaky.

Instead a worthy challenge for you and your department to focus on would be the gap that disabled people have with the workplace. Using the framing of the Social Model discussed above and looking critically at the barriers created by current policies and benefits such as ESA, such a determined approach would enable bridges to be built with disabled people and charities that have been damaged by recent policy decisions. Who knows, you might find that supporting people with their impairments to be contributing members of society actually does a lot for the welfare cap as well as fitting with the best traditions of One Nation Conservatism.

As you stated on Monday Stephen, this is a complex piece of work. Improving this area has benefits for health, social care, social cohesion and welfare. I would suggest it has more tangible benefits to the country than the speculative financial benefits of a reorganisation of how benefits are paid.

Thoughts on Jonathan Reynolds article re Basic Income

Recently the Labour MP Jonathan Reynolds wrote an interesting article in the New Statesman of how the concept of Basic Income was becoming increasingly attractive especially given how the uber-slow-motion car crash of Universal Credit that is unfolding. I am pleased that this concept is being discussed more seriously given the changes occurring to how modern economies work. Below I give my two-pennies worth as to how Labour could think about the challenges identified in Reynolds article.

Both the concepts of Basic Income and Universal Credit are seductively simple but in practice don't lend themselves to bringing simplicity to people's lives or in delivering policy intentions.

Uuniversal Credit has been plagued by IT problems as the complexity of people's lives and how the State interacts with them overwhelms any technical solutions. The biggest problem that cannot yet (ever?) be resolved by technology is the level of conditionalities expected for Universal Credit. Ironically its the lack of universality in Universal Credit that stops the system from delivering its declared outcomes.

The pure system of Basic Income has the opposite problem as the lack of conditionality results in perverse policy outcomes. Declan Gaffney's article in The Guardian discussing the problems of implementing a Basic Income programme in an imperfect world. Gaffney rightly points out that conditionality is used within the current system to correct unfairness which a pure Basic Income system wouldn't achieve.

Yet the research of Professor Jane Costello into the effects of a stipend on a community of 8,000 Cherokee Indians from their new casino in North Carolina (this is a good discussion of that research) perhaps offers (dare I say the words) 'a third way' to consider instead of a pure version of Basic Income or Universal Credit.

As ever, it requires being clear on policy intentions. In Reynolds' article, his friend Gordon poses a good question: “How....will we ensure sufficient support for people as they have to retrain throughout their working lives - not just for several different jobs, but for several different careers?”

What I would suggest are three specific policies to work together. The first policy would introduce a 'Income Buffer' available to all working age adults set (for illustration) at £3,000 per annum. The second policy would be an annual 'Lifelong Learning Grant' to all adults again set at £3,000. The third policy is to make Jobseekers Allowance time-limited and contribution based abolishing long-term unemployment.

Income Buffer

Rather than seeing Basic Income as a replacement for multiple benefits, an Income Buffer would be an additional scheme to the existing benefits system which would adjust their awards accordingly.

While I would make the Income Buffer universal for working age adults, I wouldn't make it unconditional. Instead I propose using the Income Tax system to create a taper so that as personal income increases so less buffer is required. I would designate the Income Buffer as part of a person's taxable income. Given that someone working 40 hours a week on the Osborne Living Wage in 2020 would be earning £18,700 gross per annum then any taper needs to be considered as to its starting point.

This would have beneficial effects for those affected by zero-hour contracts as it would create some stability to plan around. It would strengthen the positions of the self-employed. It would also reduce the cliff-edges between being in-work and out-of-work that have become increasingly sharp with current government policy.

Essentially its a mitigation policy for the current transitionary work environment that exists in the UK for a large part of the population. While such a policy doesn't have the ambitions of savings that a pure Basic Income system implies, it would give a working model that with further developments could integrate other benefits into the Income Buffer.

Lifelong Learning Grant

One of the many things that frustrated me about Labour's 2015 election campaign was the £3,000 cut in university tuition fees proposed. While there was a good back-end argument about the affordability of the Student Loan book to Government and the effects of that debt on graduates activity in the economy, Labour spokespeople couldn't articulate this or respond to the fact that for universities, the front-end funding was very successful for their budgets and students were discounting the future to attend university in the present. It was also a very limited cohort to appeal to (part of the 'vote Labour get a toaster' problem).

Instead, what I would propose is an annual Lifelong Learning Grant that everyone over 18 would be given to spend. Each Lifelong Learning Grant would be time-limited so that people would either spend it or lose it as each grant cannot be rolled over to the following year. The grant would have to be spent on accredited courses but these should vary from universities, further education colleges all the way through to evening classes.

So for the student facing £9,000 of tuition fees, they can use their Lifelong Learning Grant to offset some of the costs whilst keeping the financial benefits for universities. However the potential is in developing an educational culture across all sections of society generating economic activity and allowing people to develop new skills or retrain whilst in work or if they have been made redundant.

In particular, I would localise the accreditation process allowing local authorities to encourage and influence what is provided to support their economies. Yet such a policy supports personal choice as ultimately it will be each individual who chooses how to spend their Lifelong Learning Grant.

Abolishing Long-Term Unemployment

This also stems from another frustration with the 2015 election campaign. In particular not having the courage of our convictions so were left having a mealy-mouth set of policies that was designed to appeal to the Daily Mail but was incoherent regarding work and unemployment.

Likewise, we have senior politicians who will reflect the public desire for contribution-based unemployment benefits but don't have the confidence to follow that logic through. Any contribution-based system is time-limited by necessary.

As my local Labour MP says 'the clue is in the name - Labour'. The Labour Party formed by workers who believed in fair pay for fair work and a decent society. Its not difficult yet that seemed lost at the last general election. We're now seen as the party for benefits and for the marginised. We need to return to our roots.

So lets adopt a contribution-based unemployment system but with the quid pro quo that once the time limit expires, there will be employment available at the 'Osborne living wage'/minimum wage. Not work for your benefits as Rachel Reeves suggested last year. If you work, you are paid a wage. Traditional Labour values that actually simplify the relationships between the person and the State.

My instinct on the time-limit is that everyone would be entitled to three months then you have to earn each incremental increase in time by how long you have put in. The system, that tops up the Income Buffer, could be as generous as some of our European neighbours are (depending on contributions!). Also the time-limited nature of this system is the sanction. We'll treat people as adults, provide help and support but when your time is up, its up.

The quid pro quo for a contribution-based system is, I admit, still in the formation stage of my thinking. Yet if we look at the direction of travel of current welfare policies and the last Labour manifesto then it isn't a big leap to make. This is where we need to keep in mind that there is often a difference between socially useful activity and economically valued activity. I also think we need to consider the space that local authorities have withdrawn from.

So that's the compact with the British people that I would draw - the State will support you if you support your community. So valuing work of social value. This would align the State more towards the development of the 'gift economy' that is emerging and being discussed by thinkers such as Paul Mason. Delivering this will need a shift away from centralised procurement in Whitehall.

Thoughts

If Universal Credit has taught us anything, its that 'Big Bang' solutions to policy problems are fraught with simplistic utopian thinking for which the consequences are often worse than the current policy delivery. A pure Basic Income system would also suffer from this effect.

Hence why I would suggest thinking about an Income Buffer concept. It shouldn't be difficult to make arguments for this policy in television studios and on the doorstep. Defending against criticisms such as 'affordability' will require some thought.

An Income Buffer would directly respond to the financialisation of people's lives especially in the South-East while creating more economic stimulus in the poorer communities of the country. It also reflects the increasing fragmentation of the modern economy by lubricating people's working activities. It would create room for people to retrain and reskill in conjunction with the Lifelong Learning Grant. It also creates the opportunity to reform unemployment benefits so that they are contributory as public opinion would like them to be.

For the policy to be accepted then it needs to be set at a level where it isn't possible to live off and shouldn't be seen as being generous to 'scroungers'. Hence why existing benefits should be reduced in accordance with the Income Buffer. Currently £3,000 is approximately the JSA rate for 18-24 year olds so whether you have a lower buffer set for this cohort would need to be considered. Access to other support such as Housing Benefit would have to be linked with the social compact discussed above.

As with any policy change, there will be winners and losers. I'm sure that many problems will be pointed out. Yet as with Jonathon Reynolds' article, I would argue that the role of Government is to achieve policy outcomes as to what sort of society we want to live in, what resilience needs to be built into our communities to adapt to a changing world and how to stay true to Labour values. Its not an easy challenge.

Contract imposition and the opportunity for the BMA Doctors

Jeremy Hunt yesterday in Parliament stated that he would impose the new contract.

There is for the BMA and its 'Junior' Doctors an opportunity here for industrial action which is more effective than strikes as a protracted dispute with work to rule or strikes will reduce public sympathy.

It comes in this simple fact - no contract can be imposed on those possessing the current contract. There has to be a termination of your existing contract in August. The new contract will be laid out and by continuing to work without challenging that contract means you accept the new terms.

It is the space between termination and acceptance that the BMA and its Doctors should exploit.

The BMA should set up an exclusive employment agency for Doctors to join in August at the point of termination of their existing contracts.

The Doctors should then inform their current employers that: they'll be accepting redundancy in August as a result of their contract termination; they'll be expecting the statutory redundancy pay (for those entitled); they'll be joining the employment agency at the point of termination; any work undertaken after the point of termination as a result of shift pattern will be voluntary and not an acceptance of a new contract; any further retention of their services will be through the employment agency and its terms and conditions.

Through collective action, having tens of thousands of Doctors only accessible through this employment agency will impose significant additional costs onto NHS Employers while having to accept significantly better working conditions and practices. What are the NHS Employers going to do? Who else will they find by August?

You "cannot buck the market" as Tories are so fond of saying. This is a market response to the non-market practices of Hunt and co.

By terminating the employment contracts of Doctors, the NHS frees them to organise their lives in a better way for themselves. Exploit that opportunity. Embrace the market and watch the panic rise with NHS executives as their projected budgets and services spiral out of control. By controlling the future, a better settlement can be negotiated today.