WTNML: A Progressive Constitution

All three of the parties claim to be the progressive’s choice. George Osborne even labelled his October 2010 Emergency Budget “a progressive budget”. Similarly, they are all committed (ostensibly at least) to the National Health Service and social security. And in the midst of social unrest and public disgust at the bankers, no politician would dare suggest that our social problems would be best addressed were inequality to increase. Indeed, such a stance would not merely be politically unwise, but unethical and unjust. Might the majority of the public now understand that rampant inequality is bad for all?

So the problem for Labour is how to demonstrate that it really is the progressive party without having to make a raft of spending commitments.

The Party should follow the example of many other modern democracies, including South Africa and the European Union,and advocate for the incorporation of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCRs) into law. ESCR include the right to education, healthcare, social security and work. They are not absolute but (crucially) subject to “progressive realisation to the extent of the state’s maximum available resources”. Retrogressive policies would therefore be constitutionally unlawful save in “exceptional circumstances”. In other words, the incorporation of ESCR would “constitionalise” progressive politics.

But aren’t human rights unpopular? And don’t they cost money?

The limited batch of human rights that are currently protected in the domestic context by the Human Rights Act 1998, often described as “negative rights”, or “civil and political rights”, tend to be publically maligned because of the relative unpopularity of those groups most commonly associated with their invocation, leading some to describe the HRA as a “criminal’s charter”. Yet ESCRs consistently receive very favourable public endorsement (e.g. Vizard LSE 2010), precisely because they are recognised as being directly relevant to most people’s lives.

Neither do these rights necessarily involve additional expenditure by the state. Human rights based indicators and budgetary analysis techniques are derived from human experience and aim to improve “real-life” spending outcomes – i.e. to get more for less. Indeed it is at times of financial constraint and limited resources that these rights best prove their worth.

Human rights are not simply about minimum standards but above all human dignity. They comprise a holistic framework of the key constituents for human flourishing. Understood in this way, they are inspirational. A public commitment to allhuman rights would clearly demonstrate that Labour truly is the party of the many and not the few, and return it to its rightful place at the forefront of progressive politics in the UK.

Got an idea for what Labour should stand for “When there’s no money left?” – email us. We’ll be conducting a poll of the best entries, and the winner will present their idea to a “Dragon’s Den” at the Fabian New Year conference.