Skip to main content
search
Category

Centre Write

George Thomas: Increasing regulation on MPs’ second jobs will strengthen our liberal democracy

By Centre Write

“I want to show that politicians are just humans too,” former Health Secretary Matt Hancock MP told the UK population as he began his contentious appearance on I’m a Celebrity. Unfortunately, his appearance, and the £400,000 he received for making it, only exemplified the growing concern around MPs’ second jobs. Now is the time to reform this poorly regulated system that enables MPs to spend more time on second jobs than in their constituencies and earn unlimited amounts of money for doing so.

The current rules around MPs’ second jobs are inexcusably flexible for non-ministers, with few limits on potential earnings or time investments outside of government. The only existing regulations are that MPs must declare their earnings and cannot accept payment for lobbying on certain issues. Strangely, however, these restrictions do not apply if six months pass between payment and lobbying, so long as there is no second payment. 

This lack of regulation creates two notable issues. First, MPs may neglect parliamentary debates and constituency work to travel and give attention to other causes, straying from their representative function. For example, Hancock faced criticism because his television appearance took him out of the constituency for three whole weeks. Similarly, Sir Brandon Lewis MP, who holds seven paid positions in addition to his role as an MP, has been attacked for holding “one job for every day of the week.” With so many additional commitments, it is easy to see why some voters in his constituency questioned his ability to devote sufficient attention to their needs.  

Second, the existing rules have not prevented some MPs from trading their access to power to further their own financial interests. This has resulted in clear conflicts of interest, which in turn has further damaged public faith in authority. For example, the former North Shropshire MP, Owen Paterson, was eventually forced to resign after improperly lobbying the Government on behalf of two companies that paid him over £100,000 a year. While existing rules, in theory, should have prevented cases like that of Paterson, they are evidently not clear enough. 

Fortunately, there are three clear solutions available to address this growing issue and improve transparency: creating time limits on when MPs can take up further commitments, implementing a cap on the amount of revenue that can be generated from these side hustles and banning certain jobs altogether, such as lobbying in conflict with government policy.

Limiting MPs’ ability to work outside of the parliamentary recess could encourage greater contact with their constituencies, boosting transparency and accountability in the process. North Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who currently hosts a programme on London-based GB News four nights a week, recently purchased a large property in Cowley Street, some three hours away from his constituency. By restricting tertiary employment to certain parts of parliamentary recess, MPs such as Rees-Mogg have less incentive to spend considerable lengths of time outside of their constituencies.

Implementing limits on the amount that MPs can earn from second jobs would also improve constituency relations and heal our liberal democracy, ensuring that their £91,000 salary can be matched but not dwarfed by other sources of income. The current lack of regulation incentivises some MPs to chase large sums from sometimes questionable sources. For instance, in a sting operation orchestrated by campaign group Led by Donkeys, former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng was recorded offering his services to a non-existent South Korean firm in exchange for £10,000 daily. By contrast, if MPs could not earn such great sums from work outside of the constituency, there would be reason to spend more time on the needs of their constituents since the taxpayers would account for a greater proportion of their income. 

Finally, limiting the types of second jobs MPs can hold further reduces the probability of conflicts of interests.  MPs in occupations which mandate a regular annual commitment to their practice to maintain their practising certificates, such as doctors and lawyers, have a stronger claim to maintain second jobs. Rosena Allin-Khan MP, for example, should not be chastised for her regular work as a team doctor in Balham. By contrast Liam Fox MP, also a doctor, should be probed over his £86,000 tertiary income, none of which comes from medical practice but rather public relations. Indeed, Labour Deputy Leader Angela Rayner MP sensibly alluded to a potential “case by case” assessment of second jobs, which would pick up on such nuance, as a ‘one size fits all approach’ is doomed to fail. 

By imposing limits on the time scale and financial proceeds of extra-parliamentary work, MP-constituency links would be strengthened, and our liberal democracy improved. Our MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituencies, not to use their positions as a springboard to lucrative side hustles.  

George Thomas is undertaking work experience at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Heidi Fin]
April 16, 2024

James Cowling: A pro-housing Conservative pitch could wipe the floor with Khan

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

What is simultaneously the most significant cause of London’s decline and Sadiq Khan’s greatest failing as Mayor? It is, of course, the failure to deliver new homes, which has devastated London’s economy. The housing crisis has taken a particularly heavy toll on the lives of working-age Londoners, who are priced out of homeownership and ripped off by rents that are rising faster than wages. Sadiq Khan has shown he is both ideologically and managerially incapable of delivery – the net is wide open for a more ambitious Conservative housebuilding agenda. 

One only has to do the lightest research to be overwhelmed by the evidence of London’s housing challenge. The UK has some of the smallest and most expensive homes in the OECD, with the average Londoner having the same-sized living space as a Tokyoite. This housing shortage has fueled rocketing rent prices; a report by City Hall last month found that low-income Londoners in their late twenties now spend 77% of their income on housing. It rightly concludes that “young Londoners face an almost impossible situation of high rents and house prices that are out of kilter with incomes.”

The housing crisis is not just impacting poorer Londoners, Rightmove’s latest house price index put the price of the average London home at an eye-watering £686,844. That means even high-earning young people find it more difficult to buy and remain stuck in the high-rent trap. Those in their forties cannot afford family homes, so it is unsurprising that, also, fertility rates are nosediving. This is not because of personal failure, as dubiously suggested by some commentators, but policy failure. 

The economic impact is dire, as ever larger numbers are pushed out of London, sacrificing the compounding economic benefit that a city’s proximity should provide. The cost of skyrocketing rents is passed on to businesses; look at the over 1,000 venue closures during the reign of Khan’s nightlife Czar, Amy Lamé. 

Despite the slick spin of Khan’s PR, his record on housing is poor. As pointed out by Guido Fawkes in February, the official Greater London Authority (GLA) target for affordable housing starts until 2026 is 23,900-27,100 per year. In the last three quarters, Khan has managed just 874 – a dismal 4% of the target. Council house starts under the £4.8 billion ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’ programme in May number exactly zero.

Khan has not just failed, but has become an active hindrance. An independent review found “persuasive evidence that the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan work to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes on brownfield sites, not least in terms of creating very real challenges to viability … Without a step change, it is highly unlikely that the housing targets of the London Plan will be met within its 10-year period and, as a consequence, the current housing crisis will continue, if not worsen.” Working-age people do not want this and will reward the party brave enough to take action. 

Khan’s failures are ideological in origin, evidenced by his enthusiasm for social housing over private delivery. This mindset ignores that the planning system is holding back building rather than boogeyman developers, whom the left finds more comfort in blaming. His calls for rent-capping powers overlook the lack of evidence for their effectuality and portray an ignorance of supply-side reform as the only way to temper growing demand in the long term. 

It is Khan’s phobia of market forces that will pave the way for a new centre-right pitch in London. Conservatives can champion a market-based approach to unlocking new homes, offering to use the Mayor’s powers towards a new era of house building. Committing to go beyond London’s pre-war house building peak of 80,000 per year should be the minimum. In a world where the ingrained system kicks back hard against housing delivery, we need elected Conservative politicians to set a clear direction and be accountable. 

Britain Remade’s recent Get London Building report provides wonderful ideation for a Conservative renaissance in London. Building density around train stations, revising urban land use and regenerating run-down estates could unlock hundreds of thousands of homes. These measures are all within the Mayor’s gift through the London Mayoral Plan, Mayoral Development Orders (MDOs) and the ability to drive through significant housing applications. 

Conservatives have always been best when delivering – just look at Macmillan’s housing boom or Heseltine’s redevelopment of London’s Docklands. Making this pitch could win back working-age people who have turned away from the Conservative Party party in droves. Britain Remade estimates that copying successful policies from New Zealand would create a £6,000 saving for a young family renting the average two-bed. Offering young people a home of their own or significantly lowered rental costs would be a slam dunk, but to win voters’ trust, it must become front and centre of our pitch. 

It is time for Conservatives to start a new conversation about who we are and what we stand for in London. The old maxim that we can win a small section of outer London and hope inner London does not turn out has been tested to destruction. There is now an opportunity to win both inner and outer London by building the homes we desperately need. Susan Hall’s recognition of the challenge has been a welcome first step. We must now be bolder in articulating the scale of change that needs to come about, whilst also holding Khan to account for his failures. 

Naturally, some who are reading this will guffaw at the notion of a YIMBY Conservative party. This is not unwarranted, given some of our MPs’ more militant NIMBY tendencies, but the Conservative Party’s strength has always been in redefining itself around the challenges of the day. Backing measures to increase density in inner London is the perfect sweet spot – providing the biggest economic boost whilst minimising outer London voters’ disgruntlement. 

Sceptics will say we cannot risk offending our voter base in an attempt to deliver for younger people and those living in inner London. I argue that the need for action will only become more pressing; the choice now is how long we swim against the rising tide. 

James Cowling is the Founder and Managing Director of Next Gen Tories and an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: jjfarq]
April 11, 2024

William Roberts: Expanding the UK’s Wider Public Health Workforce should be the next step in the Government’s public health strategy

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

This month, a landmark Bill got one step closer to becoming legislation. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, if enacted, has the potential to save thousands of lives and billions of pounds for the National Health Service (NHS). The creation of a ‘#SmokeFreeGeneration’ would protect young people from the dangers of tobacco and be a key building block of a healthier future. It would also build a lasting legacy for the Prime Minister, for Labour have promised to back the Bill.

Prevention lies at the heart of the Bill. It is prevention that holds the key to easing pressure on a healthcare system that is buckling under a backlog of cases and reduced staff capacity, to include a waiting list which currently stands at 7.6 million. It is a failure in prevention that lies at the heart of the surge in post-pandemic childhood obesity, and the sharp rise in the number of measles cases. 

Prevention needs to be the thread that runs through public policy when it comes to protecting our health. It is vital to building a healthier and more productive future.

But a productive future is not going to be possible without a healthy workforce. People in England’s most deprived neighbourhoods work longer hours than those in more affluent areas, but live shorter lives with more years in ill health, costing an estimated £30 billion a year to the economy in lost productivity and causing enormous harm.

Last month, the ONS published data showing that up to 3 million people were not looking for work due to ill health. This should cause deep concern. To get our economy moving again we need to put the health of the public further up the political agenda. More than that, public health needs to be everyone’s responsibility.

For millions of people in our workforce, it already is their responsibility. Allied health professionals, sports and fitness trainers, town and country planners, community health champions, emergency services, pest control workers, environmental health officers, cleaning and hygiene operatives and many more all do their bit to protect and promote better public health – sometimes without knowing it.

It is occupations like these that make up the UK’s Wider Public Health Workforce.  Working across a vast range of settings, environments and workplaces, the wider workforce makes a huge net contribution to protecting the health of the public. Expanding it should be the next step in the UK Government’s public health strategy. There are up to 1.5 million people in the wider workforce that could help support better public health outcomes with more training and support. A national workforce strategy for the whole public health workforce would be a cost-effective, bold policy move from the Government and would be cost effective.

Whether it is making sure our food is safe to eat, the air we breathe is clean, the communal spaces we use are hygienic or the places we live in are designed with our wellbeing in mind, the wider workforce do a huge amount of work that isn’t always recognised. Yet they are not considered specialists in public health and their impact is not taken into account when making health policy.

The Royal Society for Public Health has recently published a report outlining how the Government can tap into the huge potential in the Wider Public Health Workforce. 

First, the UK and devolved nation governments ought to develop a cross-sector national strategy for the whole UK Public Health Workforce. This would include business, public health and other industries.

Second, the public health sector and relevant government departments ought to think collectively about how to resource, upskill and empower the Wider Public Health Workforce to maximise their impact. 

Third, the Wider Public Health Workforce should be better recognised as contributing to public health and prevention.

And last, the Wider Public Health Workforce needs clearer routes into public health and ways to develop and be recognised for its expertise in public health. These would also create better career development opportunities and progression into more specialised public health roles.

We want more people to develop and grow their public health skills. A better skilled workforce will be a net positive for society. It will ultimately help reduce pressure on the healthcare system as the wider workforce has a key role to play in prevention. 

Policymakers have nothing to lose and everything to gain when it comes to investing in public health. Doing nothing to address the UK’s declining health is going to cost us much more in the long term. 

William Roberts is the CEO of the Royal Society for Public Health.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Studio Romantic]
April 8, 2024

Callum Westood: Politicians must stop shirking responsibility for decision-making – the case of the OBR and Bank of England

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

For many years, Westminster has been enthralled with the idea of “taking the politics out of” various realms of decision-making. The prevailing narrative argues that independent bodies help avoid the day-to-day grind of Westminster politicking, the transitory influence of focus groups and opinion polls and the short-termism which is embedded in Parliament. However, de-politicisation means we miss out on important benefits of political decision-making: electoral accountability, voter representation and transparency.

The ongoing public sector pay disputes have highlighted that navigating state spending on the NHS is incredibly political and cannot be left to unelected experts. Decisions on these matters, where public, taxpayer’s money is concerned, demand democratic accountability. 

There are multiple areas of politics where significant power has been transferred from elected politicians to unelected officials, but one of the most significant is fiscal and monetary policy. In the realm of fiscal policy, whether we raise or cut taxes is a decision we would assume is accompanied by high levels of democratic accountability. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the organisation responsible for setting the limits for changes to fiscal policy – is essentially free from accountability and scrutiny.

A recent review of the work of the OBR has highlighted that the Budget Responsibility Committee exercises “a vice-like grip over the UK’s economic levers,” having recently sent ‘a warning shot to Conservatives’ considering tax cuts and told the Government to cut benefits. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt referenced the OBR’s forecasts over 50 times during his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons in 2023, also discussing the ‘headroom’ that the Chancellor will be ‘allowed’ in the Spring Budget by these forecasts.

Yet, OBR forecasts are never 100% accurate and we should not expect them to be. Between 2010 and 2023, the OBR’s one-year budget forecasts misjudged UK economic growth by £558 billion. Their forecasts are so incorrect that the average yearly error is equivalent to the combined contribution of the British auto manufacturing, agricultural and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries. This is not because the OBR is any worse at analysis than other forecasters, but because they are in the business of estimation. Our public debate and political system must recognise that we should not bestow so much influence on a single body which was established for the purposes of forecasting.

Another area where politicians have shirked responsibility is monetary policy. Until 1997, monetary policy was within the remit of the Treasury. Then Labour made the Bank of England ‘independent’ by transferring power to set interest rates to the Bank’s ‘Monetary Policy Committee.’

It seems the Government has forgotten just how political monetary policy is. Interest rates are hugely influential on the public finances, although their greatest impact is on households. Recent increases in the ‘base rate’ have seen fixed-rate mortgage payers renewing their payments at 6.5% or higher. The recent rate-raising campaign by the Bank of England has seen many households paying an additional £500 per month for their mortgage.

If burdening homeowners with additional mortgage expense was not political enough, higher interest rates also widen inequality. This is because lower income workers are more likely to be in ‘problem debt’, which they will now pay higher rates on. Meanwhile pensioners and high earners, who are already typically wealthy, will benefit from the higher interest payments they receive on their savings.

This would not be such an issue if the Bank of England was an accountable institution. However, the individual responsible for rate changes and their detrimental effects on households – the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey – cannot be voted out or even sacked by the Prime Minister. Whilst the Governor is subject to a degree of scrutiny via Select Committees, we must ask whether it is appropriate that the power to set policy, influencing the finances of millions of Britons, rests with someone unaccountable to voters and someone who is practically unimpeachable until the end of his contract in 2028.

The OBR and Bank of England are just two examples of elected politicians handing off power and responsibility for decisions which are deeply political. Each demonstrates, to differing degrees, the undemocratic culture of “taking the politics out of” decision-making processes, which have profoundly political consequences for business, families and working people.

Politicians are far from perfect, and are often not the best listeners or critical thinkers that Britain has to offer. But, their singular overriding quality which outshines all others is that, when they get it wrong, voters can boot them out. The electoral accountability of MPs means their decisions are likely to be more representative and transparent than those made by ‘experts’ behind closed doors. 

Westminster must stop relying on undemocratic bodies to shape policy. It is time that those who are democratically accountable started acting with the authority given to them by the electorate.

Callum Westwood is the winner of Bright Blue’s Tamworth Prize 2023.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Photocreo Bednarek]
April 3, 2024

Bella Wallersteiner: Israel stands alone in the Middle East on protecting LGBT rights

By Centre Write, Foreign, Human Rights & Discrimination

Israel stands out in the Middle East region for its liberal LGBT laws; as such, supporting Israel should be a priority for those advocating for LGBT rights. However, when I made this point on social media a few days ago – as someone who also considers themselves part of the ‘LBGT’ umbrella – little did I know that I would end up receiving a barrage of hateful messages and abuse from pro-Palestine activists.

Their reason? The Eurovision Song Contest.

Over 450 queer artists, individuals and organisations have urged Olly Alexander, the UK’s Eurovision contestant, to boycott this year’s competition in a show of solidarity with Palestine. Signatories of an open letter, including Maxine Peake and Sarah Schulman, have called on the singer to withdraw from the May contest due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The letter, shared on Instagram by the account ‘Queers for Palestine,’ urges Alexander to heed the Palestinian call for withdrawal from Eurovision, citing concerns over a state allegedly involved in apartheid and genocide.

In truth, the rights and wellbeing of the Palestinian people rightly demands international attention. However, conflating this with Israel’s participation in Eurovision is misguided and counterproductive.

First and foremost, let us address the elephant in the room: Hamas. As a terrorist organisation, Hamas has a long history of violence and oppression. It openly advocates for the destruction of Israel and routinely targets innocent civilians, particularly members of the LGBT community. So forgive me if I refuse to bow down to the demands of an organisation that actively seeks to erase people like me from existence.

Now, let us talk about Israel. Contrary to the narrative pushed by activist groups, Israel is a beacon of hope and progress in the Middle East when it comes to LGBT rights. In a region where homosexuality is often punishable by death, Israel stands as a shining example of tolerance and acceptance.

In Israel, LGBT individuals are protected by anti-discrimination laws, have the right to serve openly in the military and can legally adopt children. Tel Aviv, the country’s vibrant cultural hub, hosts one of the largest Pride celebrations in the world, attracting thousands of people from across the globe. This is not tokenism; this is real, tangible progress. Nonetheless, it is Israel that the aforementioned Queers for Palestine want to boycott.

Why should Israel be punished for its commitment to equality? Should LGBT individuals in Israel be denied the opportunity to participate in Eurovision because of a war they have no control over? The answer is simple: they should not.

I refuse to be silenced by hate. I refuse to let a vocal minority dictate what I can and cannot say. And, most importantly, I refuse to turn my back on a country that has done more for the LGBT community than their neighbours.

To my fellow LGBT individuals: do not let anyone tell you who you can and cannot support. Our community is built on love and acceptance, not division and hatred. So, stand tall, speak out and never apologise for defending what you believe in. Israel, I stand with you. And I always will.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Author]
April 2, 2024

Lachlan Rurlander: Forget 2024. The wipeout for the Tories could be 2029

By Centre Write, Politics

As anyone who has ever spent any time in university Conservative societies will tell you, it is sometimes tempting to believe that the only young people who vote Conservative are affected Churchill wannabes, with pocket watches, pipes, and perhaps a pince-nez.

Such a claim would be unfair – or at least it would have been in any election so far. But among young voters the Conservatives now face record low support. This is one of the reasons why in 2024, the Conservatives are facing bitter defeat. But it could mean that in 2029, the party could face wipeout.

A recent poll carried out at Whitestone Insight of 13,534 British adults revealed things look extremely dim for the Conservatives among younger voters. Of the 18-24s we surveyed, only 8% said they planned to vote for the Conservatives. Among 25–34-year-olds, it was a dismal 6%. 

To put this in context, in 2019, 19% of 18-24s who voted in that election voted for the Conservatives. And this was with Jeremy Corbyn, star of Glastonbury, offering free university tuition to all students. Even then the Conservatives clung on to almost one in five 18–24-year-olds. 

2019 itself represented a then record low showing for the Conservatives among this age group. From the heady heights of 35% support in the 1992 election, the Conservatives have never been a favourite of the young, but they have always secured a somewhat solid proportion of young people to put a cross in the box for their local Tory candidate. 

Even in 1997, at the crest of the New Labour wave, the Conservatives still managed to convince 27% of 18–24-year-olds, who voted in that election, to vote for them.

The question of how the Conservatives have got themselves into such a state among the young is evident from the policies they have prioritised over successive parliaments.

Firstly, Brexit was never going to be a vote winner among the young, and successive Governments’ chronic and well-documented inability to build any houses has left record numbers of young people with crippling rents, or still at home with their parents. Similarly, placing wealthy pensioners’ needs over and above the needs of students has not helped either — especially their seemingly undying attachment to the triple-lock.

For a while, the Conservative Party could largely ignore younger voters and live in blissful denial that doing so would ever come to bite them back. 

Now, the Conservatives’ very survival might be at risk  — not in 2024, but in 2029. This will be when their current voter base has, to put it crudely, died, and these younger voters, who currently do not intend to vote Conservative, will most likely still not be on the housing ladder, not have seen an above inflation pay rise, will be struggling to pay the bills, and possibly even be about to be conscripted into a war they do not want to fight in. 

To add to future Tory trouble, there is a good chance that Labour, whether it has a majority or relies on SNP or Liberal Democrat MPs, will extend voting rights to 16-year-olds. Conservatives will find that the mountain to climb in 2029 will only become steeper. 

Labour could go one step further and allow EU nationals living in the UK to vote in general elections as well. Conservatives in that situation could face oblivion. 

More than that, it would be difficult for any party of the right to gain traction in that scenario. It would face a triple-pronged challenge: reduced support from current 18-35-year-olds, extra votes for 16- and 17-year-olds, and EU nationals voting in domestic elections. 

The years between the 2024 and 2029 elections must be the time in which conservatives of all stripes finally take this generational threat extremely seriously. Obviously, there are many unknowns in the five years of exile which almost certainly lie ahead. Labour might undo themselves and there is every possibility that for 18–35-year-olds Keir Starmer loses his appeal, for some reason we cannot yet see.

But that does not mean the Conservatives can be complacent – they must be the opposite. A thorough analysis of what has been so effective at turning off young voters over the last 14 years would be a good place to start. In the end, it comes down to the fundamentals: competency and the economy.  

On both of these measures, the Conservatives have failed to deliver for young people. As a party, five years in opposition must be used wisely — avoiding lurching to the left or to the right, instead considering how best to champion conservatism for a new generation. If the party fails to get it right, there may be no coming back.

 

Lachlan Rurlander undertook work experience with Bright Blue in 2020, and tweets @rurlander.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Pixel-Shot]
March 28, 2024

Hailey Pitcher: An unbiased political education must be mandatory for the betterment of Gen Z

By Centre Write, Education, Politics

As elections rapidly approach in both the United States and the UK, much of the next generation is preparing to cast their first major national ballot. This Generation Z or, ‘Gen Z’ – to loosely categorise those born between 1995 and 2010 – have grown up in a time of political turmoil, with recessions and protests defining their childhood and much of their adolescence. Many are eager to cast a vote for the betterment of their futures and contribute to the political conversation. However, with a distinct lack of formal political education in schools, this raises the question: who and what has influenced the politics of Gen Z?

Despite increasing intergenerational polarisation, in 2024, politics remains an elective course in many UK schools. Whilst citizenship studies have been a part of the secondary school curriculum since 2001, according to a 2023 study by The IPPR, only 42% of teachers say their schools provide civic education. Even where civics is taught, its brief coverage of politics does not allow students to form an independent view of what it truly means to run a country, create effective policy or for a government to meet the needs of the electorate. This is undoubtedly odd; more and more young people are becoming aware of the effect politics has on their lives, yet do not know how to properly approach political discussions, nevermind voting.

A lack of formal political education drives young people to get their political education through other means. Quite often, many will adopt the beliefs of their parents and family by word of mouth – one of the most important influences on a person’s political views throughout their formative years. For instance, if politics is framed in a particular light through discussion at the dinner table, or if a partisan news station has played regularly since you were a child, it is likely that you will adopt the same political ideology rather than reading, watching or discussing different political standpoints. This was evidenced, among others, in a 2021 study, where an analysis of the opinions and lifestyles of 394 families found a significant familial correlation within politics, with the most likely political correlation between parent-to-offspring, and second most common between sibling-to-sibling. 

For those not exposed to lively political discussions at the dinner table, social media has become a popular, instant source of political information. This is no surprise; Gen Z spent their most formative years online where they obtain information for essays, access their schoolwork and, now, decide their views with a hit of the ‘like’ button. 

A common example of political education via social media is the sharing of political infographics. Primarily found on the platform Instagram, infographics exploded in popularity following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States. Such infographics will sum up an urgent political situation and usually conclude with a call to action, such as contacts for MPs, donation links and sometimes protest times and places. They cover a wide variety of issues, such as feminism, global politics and social justice issues. Often, they go viral; in a study published in 2021 in Indonesia, those gathering information from social media were subject to viewing the same post or infographic multiple times per day, whether through reposts or sharing with friends.

While some infographics can be truthful and provide accurate information, it can be hard to fact check these posts, especially as their popularity grows. Consequently, these infographics are too often biased and will only tell one side of the story. This is problematic, especially when, in total, roughly 40% of women and 31% of men were shown in the same 2021 study to receive and rely on social media for their political information. Spreading biased – often false – information could prove detrimental to society as a new generation shows up to ballot without an accurate knowledge of political dynamics, decision-making and how it can impact themselves and society. 

In order to equip students with the essential decision-making skills and background knowledge needed to participate in politics, UK schools must make a political education mandatory.

In 2013, the national curriculum was revised for key stage 3 and 4 to include citizenship. The aims of the unbiased curriculum on citizenship included equipping students with the knowledge of how the UK is governed and how to contribute to a democratic society. Yet, a 2018 parliamentary publication stated that schools are not required to follow this guidance, and often opt out of citizenship classes. It recommends mandatory citizenship classes for all ages, yet, as stated earlier, only about 50% of teachers reported their schools teaching politics, citizenship and democracy.

An unbiased political education must be mandatory for the betterment of future generations, and should begin by secondary school – around the age of 11-12 – when adolescents are beginning to grasp the power of their voice in the world of politics. This education should then continue and grow with each school year, building on the basics of the national curriculum guidance to include an explanation of the different political parties, their belief systems and examples of political extremism. These curriculums should also include units dedicated to important leaders and the legislation that was passed under their authority, for instance former US President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act which covered healthcare for millions of uninsured Americans.

Furthermore, whilst some might argue it is hard to teach politics in an unbiased manner, properly trained teachers should be able to educate students strictly on proven facts and not allow their personal beliefs to affect their lessons. Utilising teacher training days in the UK to help equip teachers with these skills to teach politics is a great start to implementing political programs into schools. Teachers are given five days out of the school year for training and consultation with administration. It is perfectly plausible to utilise one of these five to provide information on political education to teachers, explain how to teach the topic and make an effort to implement unbiased lesson plans into the national curriculum.

A decent political education gives hope to the future, and schools need to realise their role in this process. If generations to come are well equipped with the decision-making skills needed to partake in casting a ballot, first-time voters might prove themselves apt for electing a better future.

Hailey Pitcher is a Communications and Events intern at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: WavebreakMediaMicro]
March 27, 2024

Isabella Wallersteiner: Defending Reality – Why Asserting Biological Truths is Essential to Women’s Grassroots Sport

By Centre Write, Foreign, Isabella Wallersteiner, Law & Justice, Politics

In the world of sports, where milliseconds and millimetres often separate champions from contenders, fairness is everything. This is a point that has largely been lost on politicians gripped by identitarian politics and wrangling over whether a woman can have a penis, with Orwellian rhetoric from our public sector bodies increasingly seeking to manipulate language and redefine truth to fit a particular ideological agenda.

In such an environment, the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer’s belated support for measures to protect the female category of sporting competitions this week is appreciated. After previously declining to publicly confirm his position, Starmer has since said he is “supportive” of measures which protect the female category of sporting competitions. Although, the Labour leader gave no specifics about how this would be done at a grassroots level. 

In the context of grassroots sports, there is a growing discussion about the necessity of segregating sports by sex to ensure fair competition. This debate has ramped up after it was reported by the Policy Exchange think tank that biological men hold at least three Parkrun female records because of its policy that lets entrants self-identify their gender. Parkrun subsequently removed gender, course and age records from its websites after rejecting a campaign to make transgender runners record their sex at birth. A decision which will no doubt have harmful repercussions on female participation, motivation and sense of belonging in the event. 

During a recent ultra-marathon event around the Jurassic Coast, I crossed the finish line in fifth place among female competitors, marking a significant personal achievement. Without sex-specific categories, amateur athletes like myself may find ourselves overshadowed, with opportunities for recognition and advancement in the sport hindered. When I reached the final checkpoint of the race at 45K, the first question I put to the race wardens – between gulps of Lucozade and mouthfuls of Haribo – is where I was amongst the female competitors. Having access to women-only categories in the ultra-marathon meant I could challenge myself to be the best I could be and push my limits without feeling outdone by biologically superior male competitors. If you take away sex-specific categories from grassroots sport – i.e. those sports practised at a non-professional level for health, educational or social purposes – you take all of this away from female competitors. 

Calling for grassroots sport to be sex-segregated should not be controversial. The physiological advantages that men possess over women in sports have long been known, encompassing factors such as bone density, hormonal influence and cardiovascular function. One of the most notable physiological differences between men and women is muscle mass and strength. On average, men have a higher proportion of muscle mass and greater muscle strength compared to women. This inherent advantage enables men to generate more power and exert greater force during athletic movements such as sprinting, jumping and lifting weights. Consequently, male athletes often excel in sports that require explosive power and physical dominance, such as sprinting, weightlifting and football.

Another factor contributing to the male-female disparity in sports performance is bone density and skeletal structure. Men typically have denser bones and larger skeletal frames, providing greater support and stability during high-impact activities. This advantage not only reduces the risk of injuries but also enhances overall performance, particularly in sports that involve contact, collisions, and repetitive stress on the bones and joints. Sports like rugby, basketball and gymnastics – which demand robust skeletal support – often showcase the benefits of male physiology.

Testosterone, the primary male sex hormone, plays a crucial role in shaping physiological characteristics that confer athletic advantages. Men naturally produce higher levels of testosterone, which stimulates muscle growth, increases red blood cell production and enhances aerobic capacity. These hormonal differences contribute to greater muscle mass, faster recovery times and improved endurance among male athletes. While women also produce testosterone, albeit in smaller quantities, the disparity in hormone levels can influence athletic performance, particularly in endurance-based sports like cycling, distance running and swimming.

While both sexes are capable of extraordinary athletic achievements, understanding and acknowledging these inherent differences is essential for promoting fairness, inclusivity and participation. At a grassroots level, female categories undoubtedly encourage greater participation among female athletes by removing barriers and obstacles that may deter them from joining sports activities. For many women, the opportunity to compete against other women can also be a catalyst for overcoming cultural, social and logistical challenges that may otherwise hinder their involvement in sports.

Whilst Keir Starmer’s intervention this week is welcome, policymakers must go further to protect female sport at a grassroots level. This could be providing financial incentives for sports clubs and organisations that prioritise the development and promotion of female-only categories, such as grants, subsidies and sponsorship opportunities – and removing funding from those which do not. The Government should also look to enact legislation requiring sports clubs and organisations to adopt gender equality policies that prioritise female participation and representation in decision-making roles. 

Above all, we need to fix the Equality Act, as championed by former Prime Minister Liz Truss and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman this week, to ensure that sex means biological sex. By clarifying that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, policymakers can establish a clear framework for ensuring fair competition and preserving the integrity of women’s sports.

Women-only categories in sports play a vital role in encouraging female participation and providing opportunities for women and girls to excel. However, the inclusion of transgender athletes in these categories, without regard for biological sex, will undermine the progress that has been made in promoting women’s sports. By reaffirming the importance of female-only categories through legislative reform, policymakers can send a powerful message about the value of women’s participation in sports and the need to protect their rights and opportunities.

From trailblazing Olympians like Wilma Rudolph and Nadia Comaneci, to the athlete-activism of Billie-Jean King and Martina Navratilova, women have left an indelible mark on sports history through their unparalleled achievements and contributions. By maintaining women’s categories at a grassroots level, we honour the legacy of these remarkable athletes and we affirm our commitment to creating a future where every female athlete has the chance to pursue her passion, fulfil her potential and leave her mark on the world of sports.

As we navigate complex debates surrounding gender identity and expression, let us remain vigilant in defending clarity, integrity and respect in discourse, ensuring that truth triumphs over Orwellian distortion.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

You might also like...

Centre WriteHealth & Social CarePolitics

William Morris: A new programme of National Service would help tackle our mental health epidemic

Centre WriteEducationHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & DevolutionWelfare

Annabelle Walker: Childcare needs more than just demand side reform

Archive podcastCentre WriteHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & Devolution

The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland MP: The Rwanda scheme needs to be fairer, or we risk alienating voters

March 15, 2024

Max Minkin: The Trump Card – How Donald Trump came to dominate the Republican Party

By Centre Write, Politics

A whole six months away from the upcoming Republican National Convention, things could not be clearer: Donald Trump is – at least de-facto – the party’s presumptive nominee. In a way, this is a reality which seems to defy all logic.
Back in 2020, Trump lost the presidential election to a Democratic candidate who notoriously spent much of the campaign period giving interviews to friendly media over Zoom from the comfort of his basement. With the GOP – that being, the Republican Party – having already lost the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump went on to make things a whole lot worse for his party by undermining his voters’ faith in the electoral process in Georgia, leading to the Democrats gaining control of the Senate. One would think that, at that point, GOP voters would have thought to themselves that it was about time to say, “thank you”, to President Trump and go in search of fresh leadership. Instead, during the 2022 “mid-term” elections, they overwhelmingly backed populist, Trump-endorsed candidates across numerous purple states – most of whom went on to lose, with the GOP on the whole underperforming expectations in a spectacular fashion.

Despite this electoral record, the Republican Party remains largely committed to Trump. He has won the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary so far with absolute majorities. It now seems clear to everyone – aside from, evidently, Nikki Haley – that he will go on to face Joe Biden in the general election in November. So, how has “the Donald” become so dominant in the GOP?

Arguably, Trump is a new kind of phenomenon within the GOP, often described as a populist without a coherent ideology. This is not entirely accurate. If one considers what Trump represents to people – and one need not think that Trump himself is fully conscious of this – one thinks of economic nationalism, nativism, isolationism and a general opposition to a perceived “liberal blob” at the heart of the American political mainstream and the American bureaucracy. This set of attitudes is not at all new, and it has existed within the Republican Party for decades, represented most notably by Pat Buchanan, who challenged President George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries on the basis of the latter’s interventionist foreign policy and perceived lack of a meaningful social conservatism. Trump, whether he knows it or not, reinvigorated and became a standard-bearer for this strand of American conservatism in 2016. The key question here is not so much, “why Trump?” as, “why now?”

The answer to this question lies largely around white working-class voters; that is the constituency to which Pat Buchanan sought to appeal in the nineties. Back then, however, his paleoconservatism simply did not take off. So what changed?

Well, first and foremost, the Democratic Party – traditionally the post-war bastion of working-class voters – changed in a number of significant ways. Previously the champion of protectionism and industrial policy against the free-trade and laissez-faire attitudes of the GOP, Bill Clinton’s so-called Third Way orientation paved the way for a general consensus against tariffs and protections for industry in American politics. Whatever one thinks of the overall merits of the policies favoured by this consensus, it is impossible to dispute that they altered the way of life for many white working-class voters, especially in the Midwest. Many people lost their jobs as a result of factories relocating to Mexico and ended up relying on welfare payments, often resorting to drugs and alcohol to deal with the despair which comes with such profound changes.

Alongside the Democrats’ embrace of free trade, the party gradually started to become more and more socially liberal. Within less than two decades, the party became a lot more progressive on issues such as gender identity, abortion and immigration. The combination of laissez-faire economics with a far more radical social liberalism produced a Democratic party which was decidedly at odds with the views generally held by white working-class voters – who are not dissimilar from our own so-called Red Wallers, being generally in favour of economic interventionism but also socially conservative and patriotic.

All this being the case, when Trump came into American politics as a sort of 21st-century Pat Buchanan, the constituency which the latter had worked so hard to win over was far more ready to embrace someone like him. As such, these voters swarmed to Trump’s cause, finding in him a way of expressing their intense frustration with the post-Reagan consensus. As a result, some of the more traditional Republican voters – especially suburban women – did end up switching over to the Democrats, but many stayed, largely due to the much-discussed phenomenon of negative polarisation.

Evidently, over the past few decades both Republicans and Democrats have undergone serious transformations, paving the way for a new era of Trumpism. As such, if the Democrats continue to move in a drastically radical and socially left-wing direction – with a fixation on the “hot button” issues of race and gender – they have little hope of regaining the working-class vote, in effect ensuring the continued dominance of Trump within the Republican Party.

Max Minkin is a Law student at BPP and Durham University Philosophy and Politics Graduate

[Image: Africa Studio]
March 14, 2024

Isabella Wallersteiner: The Prime Minister’s speech on antisemitism and extremism: will actions match rhetoric?

By Centre Write, Foreign, Isabella Wallersteiner, Law & Justice, Politics

On Friday evening, the Prime Minister made a striking statement outside No. 10, likening Islamists and the far-right as “two sides of the same extremist coin” who harbour a mutual loathing for Britain. While the sentiment expressed in the Prime Minister’s speech was undoubtedly symbolically important, it arrives considerably late in addressing a concerning trend that has persisted since October 7th.

Since the heinous Hamas attack on Israel, weekends have been marked across the country by regular protests concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict. These protests, unfortunately, have frequently featured antisemitic imagery, casting a shadow over the public discourse and raising questions about the state of tolerance and inclusivity within our society. Such demonstrations began almost immediately after Hamas’ atrocities and before Israel had retaliated. This is in contrast to the seeming lack of interest in the sufferings of Muslims, such as the Rohingyas in Myanmar (more than a million refugees), and the persecution of the Uighur Muslims by the Chinese government.

For the past five months, individuals like myself have been tirelessly bringing to attention the presence of antisemitic symbols and rhetoric at the pro-Palestine marches in London. Yet, despite our efforts and the obvious need for action, law enforcement has often fallen short in effectively policing these events, allowing such hateful expressions to continue unchecked.

Earlier last week, as a result of my activism and fundraising, I had the honour of being invited to  the Community Security Trust (CST) annual dinner during which the Prime Minister announced the extension of a Government Grant of £18 million for the next financial year. Moreover, a minimum commitment of £18 million annually over the next four years will be allocated to the Jewish community.

The announcement came at a critical juncture given the recent surge in antisemitic incidents following the Hamas attacks on Israel and their aftermath. A recent report by the CST revealed that antisemitic behaviour in the UK reached its highest levels in over 40 years, with incidents rising by almost 150%to more than 4,000 in 2023 alone.

The persistence of these protests has led to Jewish individuals feeling increasingly vulnerable in public spaces. Recently, actress Tracy-Ann Oberman revealed that she was advised against leaving a London theatre due to ongoing pro-Palestinian protests outside. This underscores the palpable fear and anxiety experienced by members of the Jewish community amidst the escalating tensions.

Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, has also sounded the alarm, expressing grave concerns over the rise of open extremism in Britain. In an interview with the Mail On Sunday, he stated, “It is the public brazenness of hate directed towards people by category, in particular Zionists, or Israelis, or Jews.”.

Whilst the Prime Minister’s intervention is welcome, the scale of the challenge is such that without specific legislative proposals, it is hard to see how the situation will improve. Instead, the Prime Minister has emphasised backing the police in their efforts to maintain order.

The failure of the Government to take decisive action in addressing these issues has exacerbated the situation, with calls for accountability growing louder. Despite the clear evidence of antisemitism within these protests, there has been a notable absence of meaningful intervention.

One of the key points of the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday was the pledge to re-double support for the anti-terrorism Prevent program. This indicates a recognition of the need for proactive measures to counter radicalisation and prevent the spread of extremist ideologies within communities. But, the Prime Minister needs to go further and fully implement the recommendations from the Shawcross review. The long-awaited report on the Government’s counter-extremism programme ‘Prevent’ by William Shawcross, an author and the former chair of the Charity Commission, has called for a greater focus on Islamist terrorism. Despite all the evidence demonstrating that Islamist terrorism is by far the greatest terrorist threat this country faces, the numbers referred to Prevent for Islamist radicalisation have become an ever smaller proportion of those in the scheme, representing only 11% of referrals in the year April 2022 – March 2023

Shawcross’s review also revealed that university referrals to Prevent were ‘strikingly low’, despite risks to universities from extremist groups. In his speech on Friday, the Prime Minister called for universities to tackle “extremist activity” which reflects a growing government concern over the potential radicalisation of young people in educational institutions. By demanding action from universities, the Government aims to address the root causes of extremism and promote a culture of tolerance and inclusivity on campuses.

There has been a wave of antisemitic incidents faced by Jewish students across the country, including physical attacks and assaults. The CST has received 150 reports of antisemitic incidents affecting students, academics, university staff and student bodies across the UK in 2020-21 and 2021-22. This compares with 123 in the previous two academic years. The Government must go further to ensure students unions and university authorities are better supporting their Jewish students, taking concerns seriously and acting against antisemitism.

Five months have passed since the initial attack that sparked these protests and the subsequent display of antisemitism. The Government’s failure to act swiftly not only undermines its commitment to combating extremism, but has also left the Jewish community feeling isolated and unprotected. I have Jewish friends who will not use the underground on Saturdays because of this sense of fear and vulnerability.

While words are important, they must be accompanied by meaningful action. The Prime Minister’s speech serves as a reminder of the urgent need for robust measures to address extremism in all its forms. It is imperative that the Government works tirelessly to ensure the safety and well-being of all its citizens, regardless of their race, religion or background.

As we move forward, this speech should mark the beginning of a concerted effort to tackle antisemitism and extremism head-on. The time for complacency has long passed; now is the time for decisive action and unwavering commitment to the values of tolerance, inclusivity and respect for all.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue. [Image: Daniel Sandvik]

You might also like...

Centre WriteHealth & Social CarePolitics

William Morris: A new programme of National Service would help tackle our mental health epidemic

Centre WriteEducationHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & DevolutionWelfare

Annabelle Walker: Childcare needs more than just demand side reform

Archive podcastCentre WriteHealth & Social CarePoliticsTowns & Devolution

The Rt Hon Sir Robert Buckland MP: The Rwanda scheme needs to be fairer, or we risk alienating voters

March 6, 2024
Close Menu