Fabian Conference: final session

UPDATE FROM THE FABIAN CONFERENCE

By Tom Miller

The final session of the Fabian New Year Conference took the innovative and enjoyable (if slightly confusing) form of a Dragon’s Den style judging panel. Speakers were invited to propose a policy and speak in advocacy of it for a limited amount of time. Following that, the panel would each decide whether they were ‘in’ or ‘out’; any policy gaining a majority of the panel would pass to a vote by conference delegates, who would decide whether the policy was still ‘in’. Following this, the policies left ‘in’ at the end of the session would be voted on against each other by the conference delegates.

The panel was composed of Ken Livingstone, Dawn Butler MP and David Aaronovitch. It was chaired by David Lammy MP.

Kevin Maguire

10:1 maximum wage, set against the workers getting the lowest wage in the company.

Dawn Butler likes the idea, Ken Livingstone complains that someone else has taken his job anyway!

One delegate asks how Maguire would stop people atomising into self employment to avoid the limits, while David Aaronovitch questions how Man City will be able to purchase the services of Kaka.

Maguire proposes an anti-self-employment hit squad, and claims that the ‘benefit all’ effects of the policy would create incentives.

In his greatest flourish, Maguire cites the fact that he is a Sunderland fan.

Dennis McShane claims he moved a similar policy in 1996, but set the maximum-minimum ratio at 20:1.

The proposal is left in the competition.

Emma Purcell

Free nursery and childcare places for disadvantaged families.

Steeped in a tradition of Fabian gradualism. She cites it as a move towards universal childcare as a summating comment; Ken Livingstone asks why we don’t just go straight to universal childcare. Surprisingly or not, the answer is costing.

Dawn Butler questions why the proposal only applies with regard to those under 11.

David Aaranovich reclaims his radical credentials, saying the proposal is too reasonable and will probably happen anyway, and is therefore cheating the competition!

Dawn Butler comes back, citing SureStart as an already existing example of the policy.

The ubiquitous audience member, Stripy Jumper #1, says that the proposal ignores those who are chronically unemployed. However, the proposer of the policy retorts that people subject to this situation are already eligible to receive free childcare.

The outs have it.

Tim Horton, Research Driector, Fabian Society

Tax avoidance costs ten times as much as benfit fraud. Proposal is to remove half of the funds used on fighting benefit fraud and use it to fight tax avoidance.
Horton advocates using ads in Tatler to shame tax avoiders. He wants a man with a booming voice on TV telling people that they are being closed on!

Dawn Butler wonders how this will impact on poorer tax avoiders, but Horton counters that we’re talking about rich people.

David Aaronovitch asks if we’re talking about tax evasion or avoidance. Horton says that a lot of avoidance is a grey area with regard to illegality. Aaronovitch says it would be a poor idea to tell people that legal things they are doing are bad.

If it’s not illegal, he says, we’re not closing in on you!

David Lammy wonders if the policy is an election winner.

Ken derides tax havens, and says that Sarkozy, Merkel and Obama all want to close havens… he says De Gualle used tanks against Monaco, and suggests that we do the same to Guernsey! Horton says voidance within the UK is as big as avoidance via tax havens.

Dawn Butler wants a list of things which would be included in what would be ‘closed in on’, and hopes that drawing up a list wouldn’t give people ideas.

Ken backs the ideas as a step towards invading the Channel Islands! The rest of the panel seem ambiguous, but want to keep the idea in.

A delegate calls for a clear distinction between evasion and avoidance. A fair point, no doubt.

Horton says he wishes the authorities were capable of doing this, but they aren’t.

Another calls for information on what the extra money gained would actually be for.

The proposal is voted ‘in’ by the audience.

Kelvin Hopkins MP

Kelvin Hopkins puts a case for a higher state pension, an abolition of means testing, and a re-link to earnings.

He thinks it should be funded by the NI rise, and higher taxes on the rich.

Ken Livingstone agrees. David Aaronovitch asks what it would cost; Hopkins says the proposal is not costed. Aaranovich says that the reason it hasn’t already been done is probably because of the cost. Hopkins estimates at 50 Billion plus, and says that this would fall within affordable tax rises.

Dawn Butler also agrees with Hopkins, who goes on to say that he would like compensation for those pensioners who have lost out. Wouldn’t that negate the idea?

Aaranovich is out because of the cost, and because the proposal is dull.

Ken Livingstone says he gets £12,000 a year pension having been an MP, and that this is one of the best in Britain.

One contributor says that the cost is an important matter, but not the principle matter. He says that if the political will existed, the proposals could be enacted.

Another delegate hails the impact of the proposal on women in particular. He claims to know a female pensioner who receives 32p a week.

A delegate says that abolishing means testing is not dull (presumably because means testing is dull).

A young delegate asks whether spending more on pensions is the best allocation of resources, and says the proposal doesn’t have sufficient focus on generational fairness. Another delegate, previously an economist at the FT, claims that the proposal is totally unsustainable in the context of intergenerational fairness.

A delegate claims a point of order, saying that uncosted proposals should be ruled out of order, and that in any event, they would not go into a manifesto.

The floor disagrees; the proposal remains ‘in’.

Sarah Vero, a researcher for Ian Gibson MP

Cap on the number of private school students admitted to Oxbridge.

A new white papaer advocates a duty on the public sector to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

Vera decries the disproportionate intake of students from private and state school backgrounds.

There should be a 14% cap on private students, as only 7% go to private schools. The policy would be enforced through the admissions process. David Aaronovitch asks what should be done with regard to those who are privately educated but excellent students.

Sarah Vera says that this would raise the standard of debate in Universities outside Oxbridge.

He then goes on to ask why gender and race would not be included. Should we have a cap on the number of Jewish people attending Oxbridge, for instance? Isn’t this discrimination cloaked as anti-discriminatory action?

Dawn Butler cites the influence of education on life chances, and says that a teacher at Eton cried after realising that such intelligent children could come from her Brent constituency, having met a group of Butler’s summer school children.

Ken Livingstone worries that the policy is close to US-style positive action, and worries about the resentment this causes. Not very Ken Livingstone! He says that testing should replace University admissions policies.

The panel rule the idea in. It goes to the floor. One lady opposes it because it should go much further, saying that private schools should be abolished entirely. Another goes on to rearticulate Ken’s concerns about positive discrimination, and says that equalising opportunities should be done with a concentration on the beginning; in other words, in the school system. Another describes this as attacking the tail end of the problem rather than the problem itself. One person makes a legal objection. He also asks why students should be punished for the decision of their parents to privately educate.

In response, Vera says that she agrees with banning private schools, but that this may be too big an idea. Isn’t it funny how Fabians are so tempted to limit themselves?

Lots of people have mentioned positive discrimination as a point against the policy, but nobody has mentioned Laura Spence, i.e. the phenomenon of negative discrimination.

The audience call the proposal as ‘in’, but only very narrowly.

The question of who gets the final win goes back to the panel.

Aaronovitch opts for Kelvin Hopkins, but puts out a nod to Tim Horton.

Ken Livingstone opts for the pensions policy as he claims it is electable.

Dawn Butler picks the proposal on Oxbridge.

Kelvin Hopkins wins from the panel.

From the audience, it goes to a run-off vote.

Pensions and graduates draw in the audience card vote. This wouldn’t happen on Ready Steady Cook.