Subtly, in recent decades Britain has transformed. Our towns and cities have become, as the academics Will Jennings and Gerry Stoker put it, two Englands, with increasingly different views and priorities. This widening gulf was most starkly illustrated by Brexit, but the differences go much wider and cover social attitudes on issues from immigration to civil rights and political differences.
The roots of this lie in changing demographics. As our cities have grown younger over the last 25 years, our towns and villages have grown older. Between 1981 and 2011 our towns and villages lost more than a million people under the age of 25. In contrast the core cities gained 300,000. Over the same period the number of over 65s in our towns grew by more than two million.
On the wall of Jonathan Ashworth’s office is a whiteboard itemising the woes of the National Health Service: the four million patients on waiting lists, the continually missed A&E targets, the 80,000 operations cancelled in 2017. As the 70th anniversary of the NHS’s creation approaches (5 July), Ashworth believes the service is in its worst state for two decades. “It’s not a winter crisis, it’s an all-year-round crisis,” the shadow health secretary told me when we met in parliament.
Although the Conservatives have formally protected health spending since 2010, the NHS has still endured the longest period of austerity since its foundation. Historically, expenditure has risen by an average annual rate of 4 per cent, but it rose by just 0.84 per cent in the last parliament (and will rise little more in this one).
There are 24 hours to save workers’ rights from a Tory Brexit. Today MPs will vote on the Government’s EU Withdrawal Bill. This Bill is not about whether or not we are leaving the European Union – that question is settled. It is about the type of country we are after we leave.
Are we a Britain that believes in equal opportunity for all or one that doesn’t?
Are we a country that supports people in work or a country that doesn’t?
Take back control did not mean giving the extreme Brexiteers in Theresa May’s government the power to rip up workers’ rights behind closed doors.
The government’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill is simply not fit for purpose. As Labour has emphasised over many months and in many hours of debate in the Commons, the Bill falls short of its core aim to provide legal continuity and certainty once we have left the EU.
One glaring example of this is the failure to transpose the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law after we leave the EU.
Last November, the government published its much anticipated industrial strategy. It was long on words, but extremely short on specific commitments to lay the basis for a prosperous country. One of the most significant omissions from the 254 page document was any reference to Britain’s defence sector, even though this sector is of enormous actual and potential importance.
The reason for this omission was, I am told, because the Ministry of Defence (MoD) intended to publish a ‘refresh’ of its defence industrial policy. This came out just before Christmas, but only complemented the earlier publication in that it was equally vacuous.
Much of what Esther McVey has said in the past, and her record as a DWP minister in the coalition government, meant that her appointment as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will alarm all those who believe in a more compassionate and empowering society. But as the rollout of Universal Credit (UC) creaks on, perhaps there is a chance she’ll be outspoken enough to acknowledge that its central purpose is floundering - under UC, work simply doesn’t pay - and bold enough to take radical action.
Labour is winning arguments and making Ministers change policy - the Tory U-turn on legal protection for renters is proof
After years of blocking Labour’s plans to give renters living in dangerous homes proper legal protections, Tory Ministers have finally been forced to back down .
So the Government support for Karen Buck’s backbench bill is welcome. It’s more proof that Labour is winning the arguments and making Ministers change government policy.
When Sajid Javid and other Tories voted down this Labour proposal in Parliament two years ago they described it as ‘unnecessary regulation’ which ‘will deter investment and put up rents’. But the writing was on the wall even before the tragedy at Grenfell Tower after private landlord bodies backed Labour’s plan, exposing the Tory opposition as evidence-free, ideological nonsense.
Labour is a pro-worker, pro-business party. There is no contradiction. What we are not is a ‘business as usual’ party. Fundamental change is necessary.
Now, the days of the Conservatives claiming to be the party of business are over. Their catastrophic handling of Brexit and the impact it could have on British business has put paid to that mantra. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be complacent and think that, as business falls out of love with the Tories, they will automatically turn to us. We need to prove ourselves as a credible party which can overturn the failings of seven years of Tory rule.
Public ownership is fashionable again. Turning over Britain’s public assets, lock, stock and barrel into private ownership and relying only on light-touch regulation to ensure they were managed to deliver a wider public interest was always a risky bet. And that bet has not paid off.
Recent polls show an astonishing 83% in favour of nationalising water, 77% in favour of electricity and gas and 76% in favour of rail. It is not just that this represents a general fall in trust in business. The privatised utilities are felt to be in a different category: they are public services. But there is a widespread view that demanding profit targets have overridden public service obligations. And the public is right.
At the beginning of last year I wrote a blog for the New Statesman setting out why 2017 should be the year we realised we had been doing the internet wrong, the year we started putting tech power in the hands of (non-techie) people.
And there are some signs that is what happened.
The European Commission’s €2.4 billion fine of Google signalled a determination to hold the tech giants accountable and Germany’s recent ruling that Facebook’s collection of data is anti-competitive showed at least one regulatory authority was waking up to the role of data in markets. Transport for London’s insistence that Uber needed to improve their safety practices recognised that it is a taxi firm under its tech cloak and whilst Twitter and Facebook are still far from inclusive spaces their senior leadership at least acknowledges some responsibility. More and more commentators and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are waking up to the challenges of tech omniscience, algorithmic rule, market consolidation and regulatory incapacity.