The poorest 25% own just 1% of wealth: why the left needs a wake up call on ownership

The Labour movement column

By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter

The left used to be all about ownership. Democratic socialism saw ownership as power. Without common ownership, there couldn’t be socialism. Hence Labour’s old Clause IV: equity was premised on the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Then the Gaitskellites and the revisionists got their hands on the concept. The journey from the late 1950s to the final repeal of the old Clause IV in 1995 was a forty year march of the Labour party away from paying much heed to ownership as a means of creating a more equitable society. If you forage through the verbiage of the current Clause IV you find such gems as how Labour will work to ‘promote equality of opportunity.’ Nice to know but such words float into the ether before long.

While the left was quickly dragging itself away from discussing any meaningful concept of ownership a very different thing was happening on the right: it was very actively discussing ownership and it proved to be an intellectually and politically reenergising discussion. Meanwhile, the new Clause IV doesn’t even mention ownership.

Privatisation and the distribution of share capital in the formerly nationalised companies to create a new share-holding class; selling off council houses to help build the asset base of the working classes; and the general encouragement of a share-holding democracy: it is the right that has made the running. And Labour has largely just accommodated what has been – until the later privatisations such as rail and the attempted privatisation of the Royal Mail – a popular agenda. It turned out that people quite like to own a piece of the wealth.

Even now it is largely the right that is making the running. Language such as the need to ‘recapitalise the poor’ has entered our political lexicon over recent months. The Demos progressive conservatism project and Red Toryism forge ahead on this agenda. The former are proposing new community obligations for banks, the use of national insurance as an asset rather than as a de facto additional income tax, and more flexible welfare that can be channelled into property investment.

Why this should be a uniquely conservative agenda is not clear. All these ideas should hold appeal for the left also. And yet, just as was the case with council house ownership, the left is missing a trick. As Demos has indicated, the poorest 25% of Britons own just 1% of the nation’s wealth. What greater wake up call could there be for the left of British politics to engage vigourously in this debate?

David Cameron’s own thinking is influenced by progressive conservative ideas. Where he has moved, however, it has been – just as was the case with Margaret Thatcher before him – to benefit proactive middle classes. Who will benefit from an increased ability to found new ‘free schools’ if it is not the sharp-elbowed?

This underlines the dilemma for the left in reengaging with the ownership agenda. The historical memory of being forced to defend a model of public ownership – nationalisation – that had over-reached itself is strong. Technocracy is in retreat: first from the economy and now from public services. And yet the left – in the old-style social democratic tradition – has been too slow to let it go at every stage of the process. Not only has it found it difficult to let go, it has failed to rethink how new models of ownership might actually serve rather than hinder or obstruct fairness without harming efficiency.

Part of the problem is that the language is so slippery and inexact. Let me be clear: I do not see public and common ownership as the same thing. In fact, they are in many ways in opposition. Public ownership in general removes power from people. Common ownership hands it back. Public ownership is collective; common ownership has individual ownership at its core. Public ownership is technocratic and elitist; common ownership is democratic and involving.

A few green shoots do emerge. Cooperative schools stop short of local ownership but still embody some of the principles of what common ownership is about. There of 25 of these and the DCSF sees this expanding to 200 in the next year or so.

Some thinkers have started to engage with common ownership again. Stuart White has been one of the most active thinkers in this arena. It helps to adopt a republican ethos which is about distributing assets as well as political power. In his Building a citizen society, White quotes no less than John Rawls:

“The idea is to….put all citizens in a position to manage their own affairs and to take part in social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect under appropriately equal conditions.”

The spirits of GDH Cole and RH Tawney live on.

LabourList’s own contributor Chris Cook, who must surely be due a more mainstream hearing, has been arguing the case for some considerable time, applying considerable creativity in the process.

The state does so many things that could involve, capitalise, and empower us all. Whether it’s building social housing, investing in research and development, promoting renewable energy, delivering community based public services, enabling and providing utilities, the state as owner, enabler or regulator has a powerful position. That power could be dispersed to us all by giving us genuine ownership of assets and decision-making. This is a theme that was picked up by Michael Stephenson, General Secretary of the Co-operative party (which I have just joined!) yesterday:

“[With co-operative and mutual models] the quality of service is not dependant on the commands of producer interests or the whims of market forces but on frontline expertise and the needs of the people that they serve. Public assets are locked into community ownership, providing further protection against privatisation and asset stripping.”

This is all grist to the left’s mill. And yet we let David Cameron make the running on dispersing power and opportunity through redefining the state. This is our natural territory yet an historically acquired reticence holds the left back.

What makes it more barmy is that the public would be willing to listen and engage with a reformist programme. As a BBC/Globescan poll last week showed, 57% now believe that the problems associated with capitalism can be addressed through reform and regulation. 40% believe that the government should play a more active role in owning or controlling major industries.

It would seem that the general public still think in private v public terms. Well, it may take some deft political entrepreneurship but with imagination and a renewed engagement with ownership on the left the notion of public ownership could be replaced with common ownership. This is not just a ‘wouldn’t it be good if?’ This is a necessity for an invigorated and invigorating progressive politics.