Press Releases

Latest edition of ippr's Public Policy Research journal

Email this to a friend Print Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit

13 November 2008

Progressive territory is shared by politicians on the left and right, but the term ‘progressive’ is starting to lose its meaning. This cross party consensus is an opportunity to reassess what progressivism stands for according to an essay for the latest edition of Public Policy Research (ppr), the quarterly journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research.

The end of progressive politics?
Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenheim, Co-Directors, Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) argue that although progressive politics has not failed, neither has it provided a sufficient response to the challenges posed by a rapidly changing and global world, and must adapt. They recommend that progressives must redefine themselves by:

Reclaiming radical localism – by devolving power and resources and encouraging community empowerment
Having a smarter, more responsive state willing to embrace more, not less, responsibility for our lives – in today’s global world citizens look to their government for help when times get tough; the collapse of financial institutions require new forms of international action and regulation.
Supporting families - by promoting stable relationships, getting the right balance between working and caring and ensuring a lifelong commitment between parents and children.
Creating a plan for rebuilding political trust - by ensuring new polices have ownership and commitment from those they affect

Love is all you need
Michael Gove MP, Shadow Minister for Children, Schools and Families, argues that under Labour the only relationship that matters is that between the individual and the state. This is illustrated by the closure of post offices and small GP practices which impacts on social capital. Gove argues this approach is flawed because it strips communities of binding services. He argues that to achieve progressive social change politicians must focus on helping to improve relationships, such as those between man and wife, teacher and pupil, parent and child. He describes this as being at the heart of Conservative policy.

Is gender equality legislation becoming counter productive?
Catherine Hakim, Sociologist, London School of Economics, argues that gender equality legislation prohibiting sex discrimination is futile or perverse, as it has little impact on the division of labour among men and women, either at home or at work. She argues that social and family policy should be gender neutral so people are free to choose their own family model. This might mean allowing paid sabbatical leave for every worker, which would de-stigmatise parental leave, and could be used for childcare or further education.

To the left, to the right…?
John Curtice, Professor of Politics, Strathclyde University assesses the changes in Liberal Democrat policy over the past ten years which have seen a swift move from left of labour in 1997 when advocating tax and spend policies, to their latest incarnation on the right of Labour and the Conservatives with promises to cut taxes. Curtice questions if this is a wise move and if the gamble will pay off at election time. He argues that they are in danger of losing votes because the public is still ignorant of the party’s new stance and the dramatic shift in values may result in a loss of credibility. The new agenda, he says, must be communicated more effectively and convincingly if the gamble is to pay off.

Why public service reform hasn’t worked
Matthew Taylor, Director, Royal Society of Arts argues that both Labour and the Conservatives have failed to develop a health service and education system that the public wants. He explains that both parties have failed because they are too concerned with exaggerating and politicising reforms instead of recognising the complex nature of different public services. This has led to misleading claims, like public services delivering ‘greater equality’ or ‘empowerment’. Taylor argues that change can only happen if politicians address issues concerning the futures we face, the society we want to live in, and what public services mean for us as citizens.

The special relationship
John Lloyd, Director of Journalism, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, explains that the close relationship between journalists and politicians which has developed in the post Blair era is a dangerous one where inter reliance holds a mixture of bitterness and affection. Discussing the slick PR machine which surrounds Cameron’s Conservatives and drawing on international examples, Lloyd argues that although politicians from different countries have differing levels of interaction with the media, they now all acknowledge that no matter how difficult the relationship they have no choice but to court each other to survive.

Don’t sneer at suburbia
Rupa Huq, Professor of Sociology, Kingston University, argues that although the political currency of ‘Englishness’ has risen under New Labour and the Government has often been accused of being fixated with middle class votes, politicians have neglected the suburbs and spent too much time on initiatives to improve inner cities. Huq argues that this is foolish because the true Englishness Brown wishes to promote lies in the suburbs. She calls for the Government to recognise the need for focus on suburban issues and urgently develop a dedicated policy agenda to ensure their continued success.

Is this the end of social democracy in Europe?
Roger Liddle, Vice Chair, Policy Network, argues that the structural changes in political ideologies which have weakened the centre left across Europe may also explain New Labour’s apparent decline. He asserts that European Social Democrats have failed because they have ignored the rise of individualism, resulting from the decline in traditional working class voters and trade unionism. He recommends that if Social Democrats in the UK are to survive they must learn lessons from their decline in Europe and formulate a new agenda for change.

Limiting conflict in the Caucasus
Donald Rayfield, Professor of Russian, University of London, looks at the history of relations between Georgia and Russia to argue that the situation is not as clear cut as media coverage has portrayed it. He recommends that those helping the countries to rebuild their relationship take the history of relations between the two countries into greater account so they can help reverse the pattern of centuries of separation followed by decades of unity.

Notes to editors:
Copies of the different articles in PDF format are available on request from the ippr press office.

Please note that the views expressed in PPR are those of the authors and not necessarily the views taken by ippr.

Articles can only be edited and republished with the permission and approval by ippr and the authors.

ppr is the quarterly journal from the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) edited by Julia Margo. ippr undertakes research on a wide variety of areas: from social mobility and equalities to economics and employment; core public services like education and health; constitutional and democratic reform and local government; technology, arts and media; development and sustainability. www.ippr.org

Contact:

Luke Hildyard, External Affairs Assistant, 020 7470 6120 / l.hildyard@ippr.org

Kelly O’Sullivan, Media Officer, 020 7470 6125 / 07813928239 / k.osullivan@ippr.org