Skip to main content
search
Category

Centre Write

Crawford Sawyer: Why we need to think seriously about AI deepfakes

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance, Politics, Welfare

If you received a phone call from your local mayor, how would you feel? “Great!”, you may think. “What a personal touch – I always did like them.” 

Now, consider that your mayor made the call in your native language, but you are fairly certain they do not speak Spanish fluently. Then, you turn on the news: it turns out that they used Artificial Intelligence (AI) software to augment their voice into speaking languages they did not know. How would you feel then?

Most of us would find this uncanny, unethical and intrusive – and with good reason. For the people of New York, this was not just a hypothetical situation.

In October of last year, the Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, used AI to ‘fake’ his way into speaking Spanish, Yiddish, Mandarin, Cantonese and more in thousands of automated interactions with citizens across the city. Adams is a serial user of AI, having trialled an automated subway police robot in 2023 (to woeful results) and, notably, a faulty Chatbot designed to offer 24/7 guidance to local businesses.

It takes three seconds of audio to reach an 85% match to a voice, and one in four people have received some form of AI scam, with many impersonating friends or family. To use AI and deepfake technology in the way that Adams did is, simply, a lie. Despite passing it off as trivial, he would have gained significant stead in the eyes of many New Yorkers if not uncovered. What is more, it is a dangerous precedent for a public official to make, and a very thin line between that and electoral fraud. Earlier this year, the technology that enabled Adams’ phone calls was used to impersonate President Biden in scam calls. fraudulently encouraging voters not to vote for Biden in the primary. 

Deepfakes are forms of Generative AI that use machine learning to create ‘fake’, audio or visual, likenesses of real-life people – often without their consent. Whether constituents believe deepfaked content for its realism, or the public begins to distrust organic media, the mere existence of AI and deepfaked content undermines our epistemic basis for believing digital content.

Deepfakes are a present political issue, not a dystopian premonition. And in a year where 49% of the world’s population is set to vote, the question of deepfake fraud has become ever salient. ChatGPT boasts more than 180 million users, and the truth is that Generative AI is going to be an omnipresent aspect of society for the foreseeable future.

This is not to ignore the benefits of AI, both political and otherwise. It can be used to help voters articulate their political beliefs, to generate advertising material at a fraction of the cost and to synthesise large amounts of data to better understand political trends. As such, the question ought to be how we can effectively regulate AI and retain its advantages.

In light of this, effective regulation needs to address three imminent problems. First, the use of political deepfakes to lie to the public. Second, the generative use of unethical data. And third, the rise of misinformation in the political sphere.

Inspiration can be drawn from the ELVIS ACT passed in Tennessee this year. Here, the unauthorised use of a person’s voice or image without their consent was criminalised, as was the dissemination of unauthorised tools, services and algorithms designed to create the deepfaked voices and images. This would assuage certain ethical qualms insofar as a deepfake can only be made following authorisation from the person concerned.

However, this measure does not do enough to demonstrate to the recipient that it was artificially created, so it is still lawful to create a deepfake in your voice as though it were you (recall Adams). 

On this front, regulation designed to ‘stamp’ any deepfaked content with an AI accreditation – notifying its recipients that it is artificial yet authorised – needs to be introduced. This may be a soundbite at the beginning of an audio message or a visual cue akin to a trademark for an image or video. Such a stamp should only be awarded when the software that made it is entirely transparent in its data’s origin to ensure that the data was ethically sourced – and by a relevant authority. As detection software is becoming as sophisticated as AI itself, it is something that needs to be attempted if we want to retain trust in politics.

As education and awareness of the capabilities of deepfakes grows, the need for strict regulation will become less pressing. But, in the meantime, it is paramount that we implement legislation to make it explicit when a piece of content is made with AI. It is important to stress that regulation is not designed to prohibit AI, but instead encourage its ethical use.

 

Crawford Sawyer is a Masters student at University College London (UCL). 

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Sikov]
May 10, 2024

Bella Wallersteiner: Why the Conservatives must return to the centre ground

By Centre Write, Foreign, Human Rights & Discrimination

In the turbulent waters of contemporary politics, the Conservative Party finds itself navigating treacherous currents. The recent local and mayoral elections have underscored a dire need for introspection and course correction. As the Party grapples with its electoral woes, it is time to recognize that the path to redemption lies in a return to the centre ground, anchored by pragmatic policies that resonate with younger voters. The Party must urgently pivot. A renewed focus on housing, the environment and investment, and a pragmatic stance on Brexit, are all imperative for the Conservatives’ survival and success.

The Conservative Party suffered significant losses across England, losing control of ten out of the 18 councils they were defending. Nearly half of their nearly 1,000 councillors up for re-election were unseated, signalling widespread discontent among voters. The Blackpool South parliamentary by-election alone saw a direct swing to Labour of over 20 percentage points, marking the fifth such loss for the Tories in the last 12 months.

In my home city of London, Sadiq Khan was re-elected for an historic third term, securing the second-largest majority in the history of the London mayoralty in the process. The Labour incumbent won 1,088,225 votes – a majority of 275,828 over his main rival, Conservative candidate Susan Hall.

Susan Hall was the wrong candidate for the job. It is crucial that the Conservative Party learns from these mistakes and selects a pragmatic, forward-looking candidate next time, capable of connecting with younger voters and inspiring a vision for the future of our capital.

It is clear that the Conservative Party’s current trajectory is leading them towards electoral disaster. The recent polling data paints a bleak picture: young voters are increasingly disillusioned and disenfranchised from the party with only a dismal 1% of 18-24 year-olds planning to vote Conservative in the next election. Instead of doubling down on divisive policies and ideological fervour, it is time for the Conservatives to return to their pragmatic, centrist roots.

Margaret Thatcher’s tenure as Prime Minister was marked by a commitment to fiscal responsibility coupled with strategic investments in crucial infrastructure projects. From the Channel Tunnel to the rejuvenation of the Docklands in London, the Conservatives demonstrated a willingness to tackle long-term challenges head-on, laying the foundations for economic prosperity and growth. Today, as we face pressing issues, from housing shortages to outdated transportation networks, the Conservatives must channel Thatcher’s legacy and prioritise investment in homes and infrastructure once again.

The housing crisis is not merely a policy challenge; it is a generational burden weighing heavily on the aspirations of young people. Skyrocketing rents and unattainable property prices have created a landscape of despair for many aspiring homeowners. The Conservatives must champion initiatives that prioritise affordable housing, such as increasing the supply of homes, incentivizing property developers to build affordable housing and implementing innovative solutions like community land trusts. By addressing the housing crisis head-on, the party can demonstrate its commitment to fostering social mobility and securing the future for younger generations.

One of the biggest barriers preventing young people from achieving financial stability and buying their own homes is the burden of high taxes. Scrapping national insurance would be a tangible way to show young people that the government is listening to their concerns and taking action to address them. By freeing up more of their hard-earned money, the government can empower professionals to pursue their goals and aspirations without being weighed down by excessive taxation.

Second, embracing green initiatives could position the UK as a global leader in emerging industries while creating sustainable jobs for the future. Rishi Sunak’s pivot away from net zero policies after the Uxbridge by-election was misguided and, as I warned at the time,  risked alienating young voters and stifling economic growth. Unlike his predecessor Boris Johnson, Sunak does not seem to see environmental policies as a priority or an opportunity for growth. This detachment could cost the Conservative Party dearly in the long run. 

Third, Brexit remains a contentious issue that has polarised the nation. The Conservatives must adopt a pragmatic approach to Brexit that minimises disruption and maximises benefits for all stakeholders. This entails prioritising trade agreements that preserve economic ties with Europe while forging new partnerships across the globe. 

Labour’s dismissal of a recent EU proposal to reopen freedom of movement for young adults was not only short-sighted, but a missed opportunity for progressive policy-making. While Labour fumbles, the Conservative Party should take note and consider adopting this bold proposal as a means to attract younger voters.

And finally, investing in infrastructure and regulatory reform can bolster the UK’s competitiveness and economic growth in the post-Brexit era. By steering clear of ideological dogma and embracing pragmatic solutions, the Conservatives can demonstrate their commitment to safeguarding the national interest while building bridges with the younger voters who value pragmatism over ideology.

Economic competitiveness and Brexit are not unrelated. In 2022, Andy Street told BBC Radio 4 that Brexit was bad for business, and that there had been “some consequences” for business in his region as a result. He went on to say that more support was needed to help exporters: “We do have to deal with the whole issue of how easy it is to export, that’s paper work, the physical movement… It’s also the support for business to export, so that is definitely an issue.”

Ultimately, these local elections were about the tale of two mayoral candidates who neatly reflect the ongoing battle for the soul of the party. Andy Street, the outgoing Mayor of the West Midlands, exemplified the kind of centrist leadership that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. Street’s focus on pro-growth policies, effective governance and collaboration with diverse stakeholders earned him widespread respect and admiration. His defeat is a loss not only for the West Midlands, but for the Conservative Party as a whole.

On the other hand, Susan Hall’s mayoral campaign in London was a textbook example of how not to appeal to voters – especially younger generations. Hall’s lacklustre candidacy, negative messaging and disconnect from the values and aspirations of Londoners ultimately led to her much more decisive defeat. 

I have voted Conservative my entire life, but I can neither confirm nor deny whether I spoiled my ballot for the London mayoral contest on Thursday.

The Conservative Party stands at a crossroads. To secure its relevance and electoral prospects, the party must return to the centre ground, focusing on housing, investment, economic growth and adopting a pragmatic stance on Brexit. Only by embracing centrism can the party hope to remain relevant and competitive in the years to come.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: pablobenii]

May 8, 2024

Emily Taylor: The public’s hidden addiction to sugar warrants greater regulation

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance, Emily Taylor, Politics, Welfare

Amongst the 34 million videos posted on TikTok daily, those of bodybuilder Eddie Abbew have recently gone viral for their expletive-laden warnings of junk food. In particular, his videos in the run up to Pancake Day and Easter gained significant views for their timely warnings. “On your marks, get sick, die,” he remarked, as he scanned the promoted shelves of supermarkets filled with pancake toppings, Easter eggs and hot cross buns.

 Whilst somewhat hyperbolic, Abbew’s short-form content raises awareness of a much wider problem: the general public’s hidden addiction to sugar.

Now, it is important to distinguish between different types of sugars. Some sugars appear naturally in fruits, vegetables and milk; foods that are nutritious, full of fibre and beneficial for the health of your gut microbiome. Added sugars, on the other hand, are those found widely in processed foods and those high in saturated fat. Of these, the NHS recommends that adults should consume no more than 30g a day and children no more than 24g a day. This may seem like an achievable target, but closer inspection reveals this to be, in fact, quite tricky.

The average chocolate bar contains approximately 200 to 300 calories – arguably a feasible amount to slot into your daily calorie intake should you fancy a treat. However, the average sugar content in such bars stands at between 25g and 27g – between 80-90% of your daily sugar quota in one sitting. 

The unexpectedly high content of added sugars in everyday foods inevitably supports a high content of sugar in the average diet – a factor which has been evidenced to raise blood pressure, increase inflammation and lead to various chronic diseases like diabetes and fatty liver disease, nevermind increasing your risk of heart attack and stroke. For the average worker, high sugar intake can also impair cognitive function and contribute to brain fog, causing rapid spikes and drops in blood sugar levels throughout the day. Yet, popping out of the office to grab a mid-afternoon treat is so widely accepted across the Western world.

Like Abbew, many content creators are coming online to share how cutting sugar out of their diet did wonders for their gut health, skin clarity, facial inflammation and general energy levels. This is not radical – even if it is a “gritty honesty” for fans of a sweet treat. In fact, it is a status quo shift that scientists and activists have been fighting toward for decades.

It is in both the government’s and larger businesses’ interest to encourage product reformulation – altering the processing and composition of unhealthy foods and beverages  – as those products which are too high in added sugars may soon be left behind as society moves on from their sugar addiction to prioritise their health.

Headway was made by the 2018 Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) which led to sugar intake from soft drinks falling by an average of 2.7%, per household per week whilst encouraging corporates to reduce the added sugar content of their fizzy drinks. Similarly, the legal requirement for calorie labelling on menus legislated in May 2021 stimulated businesses to reformulate unhealthy products before displaying the calorie count to protect both their dignity and public image. Nevertheless, the problem at large warrants more regulation to encourage more reformulation.

First, the Government should consider highlighting those products which are high in added sugar with a dedicated symbol on their packaging. Doing so would help to change the lived environment and nudge consumers towards healthier alternatives. Ensuring both sugar content and calories are clearly labelled would help to highlight the calorie-sugar problem which often bypasses the consumer’s attention.

Secondly, it is essential that the threshold employee number to display calorie content and nutritional value on menus and food labels should be lowered. Currently, a company can have up to 250 employees without needing to display a food’s nutritional information, which leaves many national and even international companies able to slip through the cracks and not face responsibility for their social impact.

By doing so, the Government might put pressure on food businesses to reinvest some of their profits into reformulating their products to be less calorific and more nutritional, such as by including more fibre, protein and micronutrients in their products, all of which we know to be beneficial to our health. 

It is high time for the food sector to take the responsibility to explore healthier yet tasty products. At the very least, they have the responsibility to be transparent about the impact they have on their consumers. Abbew’s ideal diet is certainly far off becoming the norm, but his thinking should not be the exception.

Emily Taylor is the Senior Communications and External Affairs Officer at Bright Blue. She is also a co-editor of Centre Write.  

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Barry Barnes]
May 3, 2024

Peter R. Brookes: Parental tax relief could fix the UK’s low fertility rate

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance, Politics, Welfare

The UK faces a fiscal crisis with an ageing population as the number of dependants per worker soars. We already have around one person over 65 for every three of working age – this is projected to rise to around 1 person over 65 per 2 people of working age by 2050. Three solutions are available: we can reduce the number of dependants, we can raise the fertility rate, or we can take in workers from abroad. In many respects, raising the fertility rate is the most appetising of the methods. It avoids the encouragement of death we already see in Canada. It also limits the excesses of brain drain in other countries that taking in workers from abroad would bring. Nonetheless, it is perhaps the most difficult of the methods to scale.

Poaching talent from abroad is not a long-term solution anyway; over time, it may become increasingly difficult for the UK. Competing demand for immigration is likely to increase across the developed world, as fertility rates there remain well below replacement. Simultaneously, the number of potential immigrants – particularly skilled ones – will likely decline, since sub-Saharan Africa is currently the only region with above replacement fertility. In the future, we may not be able to attract productive immigrants with the needed skills as we do now. After all, we already struggle to attract sufficient numbers of healthcare staff.

Meanwhile, the UK is already lagging behind the richest countries in terms of real median income and has a subpar growth rate. What is more, under current projections, the UK will default on welfare obligations in the early 2040s. Even those concerned about the ageing population often fail to appreciate the scale of the problem we face. At the same time, if people had their stated desired number of children – 2.35 per woman – we would have slightly above replacement fertility. So, there is an urgent need to identify policies which will best facilitate people to have the children they wish to have.

These pro-natalist policies largely come with a hefty price tag. Hungarian total fertility rate (TFR) now exceeds that of many European countries but comes at the cost of several percent of GDP. However, there are some measures that have a reasonable return on investment.

An example is a German maternity benefit policy introduced in 2007. The reform had manageable costs and saw an increase in fertility of 23% among educated women. It did so by renumerating women for lost earnings, ensuring their maternity benefits amounted to 67% of their earnings. The total cost of running the program in recent years is around half a percent of the UK Government’s budget deficit.

That said, changes to maternity and paternity leave pay risk a higher burden on the private sector, which would find an increasing number of women out of work. Instead, the Government should look to parental tax reliefs. These offer an even more cost-effective solution to the ageing population crisis the UK faces.

We could match the principle of the German maternity benefit policy by granting tax relief on a woman’s earnings in the year prior to and following childbirth. Such a policy would not set a welfarist precedent, but would have the same wealth effect as the German maternity policy.

Other pro-natalist policies often have a short-term positive effect on fertility as people shift the timing of childbirth earlier, but then find their impact trailing off. This is an exception: so far, the German maternity policy has had a permanent positive effect on fertility rates. This is even seen on a macro level – Germany is one of the few developed countries to have increased its fertility rate in the past 20 years.

The German policy has also had positive implications for long-run fiscal sustainability and gender equality. Successful German women have higher medium- and long-run earnings due to the policy. Further, any tax relief policy brings an obvious incentive to work and earn more. Therefore, the full cost of implementing such a policy would be significantly less than the headline figure.

Such a policy would most encourage productive members of society to have more children. It is in keeping with small-c conservative values: helping people to build the lives they wish to have through hard work. Importantly, it shifts the dial in the pro-natalist direction.

Peter R. Brookes is a private tutor. He writes the Persistent Ruminator substack.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Pixabay]
April 30, 2024

George Thomas: Increasing regulation on MPs’ second jobs will strengthen our liberal democracy

By Centre Write

“I want to show that politicians are just humans too,” former Health Secretary Matt Hancock MP told the UK population as he began his contentious appearance on I’m a Celebrity. Unfortunately, his appearance, and the £400,000 he received for making it, only exemplified the growing concern around MPs’ second jobs. Now is the time to reform this poorly regulated system that enables MPs to spend more time on second jobs than in their constituencies and earn unlimited amounts of money for doing so.

The current rules around MPs’ second jobs are inexcusably flexible for non-ministers, with few limits on potential earnings or time investments outside of government. The only existing regulations are that MPs must declare their earnings and cannot accept payment for lobbying on certain issues. Strangely, however, these restrictions do not apply if six months pass between payment and lobbying, so long as there is no second payment. 

This lack of regulation creates two notable issues. First, MPs may neglect parliamentary debates and constituency work to travel and give attention to other causes, straying from their representative function. For example, Hancock faced criticism because his television appearance took him out of the constituency for three whole weeks. Similarly, Sir Brandon Lewis MP, who holds seven paid positions in addition to his role as an MP, has been attacked for holding “one job for every day of the week.” With so many additional commitments, it is easy to see why some voters in his constituency questioned his ability to devote sufficient attention to their needs.  

Second, the existing rules have not prevented some MPs from trading their access to power to further their own financial interests. This has resulted in clear conflicts of interest, which in turn has further damaged public faith in authority. For example, the former North Shropshire MP, Owen Paterson, was eventually forced to resign after improperly lobbying the Government on behalf of two companies that paid him over £100,000 a year. While existing rules, in theory, should have prevented cases like that of Paterson, they are evidently not clear enough. 

Fortunately, there are three clear solutions available to address this growing issue and improve transparency: creating time limits on when MPs can take up further commitments, implementing a cap on the amount of revenue that can be generated from these side hustles and banning certain jobs altogether, such as lobbying in conflict with government policy.

Limiting MPs’ ability to work outside of the parliamentary recess could encourage greater contact with their constituencies, boosting transparency and accountability in the process. North Somerset MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who currently hosts a programme on London-based GB News four nights a week, recently purchased a large property in Cowley Street, some three hours away from his constituency. By restricting tertiary employment to certain parts of parliamentary recess, MPs such as Rees-Mogg have less incentive to spend considerable lengths of time outside of their constituencies.

Implementing limits on the amount that MPs can earn from second jobs would also improve constituency relations and heal our liberal democracy, ensuring that their £91,000 salary can be matched but not dwarfed by other sources of income. The current lack of regulation incentivises some MPs to chase large sums from sometimes questionable sources. For instance, in a sting operation orchestrated by campaign group Led by Donkeys, former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng was recorded offering his services to a non-existent South Korean firm in exchange for £10,000 daily. By contrast, if MPs could not earn such great sums from work outside of the constituency, there would be reason to spend more time on the needs of their constituents since the taxpayers would account for a greater proportion of their income. 

Finally, limiting the types of second jobs MPs can hold further reduces the probability of conflicts of interests.  MPs in occupations which mandate a regular annual commitment to their practice to maintain their practising certificates, such as doctors and lawyers, have a stronger claim to maintain second jobs. Rosena Allin-Khan MP, for example, should not be chastised for her regular work as a team doctor in Balham. By contrast Liam Fox MP, also a doctor, should be probed over his £86,000 tertiary income, none of which comes from medical practice but rather public relations. Indeed, Labour Deputy Leader Angela Rayner MP sensibly alluded to a potential “case by case” assessment of second jobs, which would pick up on such nuance, as a ‘one size fits all approach’ is doomed to fail. 

By imposing limits on the time scale and financial proceeds of extra-parliamentary work, MP-constituency links would be strengthened, and our liberal democracy improved. Our MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituencies, not to use their positions as a springboard to lucrative side hustles.  

George Thomas is undertaking work experience at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Heidi Fin]
April 16, 2024

James Cowling: A pro-housing Conservative pitch could wipe the floor with Khan

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

What is simultaneously the most significant cause of London’s decline and Sadiq Khan’s greatest failing as Mayor? It is, of course, the failure to deliver new homes, which has devastated London’s economy. The housing crisis has taken a particularly heavy toll on the lives of working-age Londoners, who are priced out of homeownership and ripped off by rents that are rising faster than wages. Sadiq Khan has shown he is both ideologically and managerially incapable of delivery – the net is wide open for a more ambitious Conservative housebuilding agenda. 

One only has to do the lightest research to be overwhelmed by the evidence of London’s housing challenge. The UK has some of the smallest and most expensive homes in the OECD, with the average Londoner having the same-sized living space as a Tokyoite. This housing shortage has fueled rocketing rent prices; a report by City Hall last month found that low-income Londoners in their late twenties now spend 77% of their income on housing. It rightly concludes that “young Londoners face an almost impossible situation of high rents and house prices that are out of kilter with incomes.”

The housing crisis is not just impacting poorer Londoners, Rightmove’s latest house price index put the price of the average London home at an eye-watering £686,844. That means even high-earning young people find it more difficult to buy and remain stuck in the high-rent trap. Those in their forties cannot afford family homes, so it is unsurprising that, also, fertility rates are nosediving. This is not because of personal failure, as dubiously suggested by some commentators, but policy failure. 

The economic impact is dire, as ever larger numbers are pushed out of London, sacrificing the compounding economic benefit that a city’s proximity should provide. The cost of skyrocketing rents is passed on to businesses; look at the over 1,000 venue closures during the reign of Khan’s nightlife Czar, Amy Lamé. 

Despite the slick spin of Khan’s PR, his record on housing is poor. As pointed out by Guido Fawkes in February, the official Greater London Authority (GLA) target for affordable housing starts until 2026 is 23,900-27,100 per year. In the last three quarters, Khan has managed just 874 – a dismal 4% of the target. Council house starts under the £4.8 billion ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’ programme in May number exactly zero.

Khan has not just failed, but has become an active hindrance. An independent review found “persuasive evidence that the combined effect of the multiplicity of policies in the London Plan work to frustrate rather than facilitate the delivery of new homes on brownfield sites, not least in terms of creating very real challenges to viability … Without a step change, it is highly unlikely that the housing targets of the London Plan will be met within its 10-year period and, as a consequence, the current housing crisis will continue, if not worsen.” Working-age people do not want this and will reward the party brave enough to take action. 

Khan’s failures are ideological in origin, evidenced by his enthusiasm for social housing over private delivery. This mindset ignores that the planning system is holding back building rather than boogeyman developers, whom the left finds more comfort in blaming. His calls for rent-capping powers overlook the lack of evidence for their effectuality and portray an ignorance of supply-side reform as the only way to temper growing demand in the long term. 

It is Khan’s phobia of market forces that will pave the way for a new centre-right pitch in London. Conservatives can champion a market-based approach to unlocking new homes, offering to use the Mayor’s powers towards a new era of house building. Committing to go beyond London’s pre-war house building peak of 80,000 per year should be the minimum. In a world where the ingrained system kicks back hard against housing delivery, we need elected Conservative politicians to set a clear direction and be accountable. 

Britain Remade’s recent Get London Building report provides wonderful ideation for a Conservative renaissance in London. Building density around train stations, revising urban land use and regenerating run-down estates could unlock hundreds of thousands of homes. These measures are all within the Mayor’s gift through the London Mayoral Plan, Mayoral Development Orders (MDOs) and the ability to drive through significant housing applications. 

Conservatives have always been best when delivering – just look at Macmillan’s housing boom or Heseltine’s redevelopment of London’s Docklands. Making this pitch could win back working-age people who have turned away from the Conservative Party party in droves. Britain Remade estimates that copying successful policies from New Zealand would create a £6,000 saving for a young family renting the average two-bed. Offering young people a home of their own or significantly lowered rental costs would be a slam dunk, but to win voters’ trust, it must become front and centre of our pitch. 

It is time for Conservatives to start a new conversation about who we are and what we stand for in London. The old maxim that we can win a small section of outer London and hope inner London does not turn out has been tested to destruction. There is now an opportunity to win both inner and outer London by building the homes we desperately need. Susan Hall’s recognition of the challenge has been a welcome first step. We must now be bolder in articulating the scale of change that needs to come about, whilst also holding Khan to account for his failures. 

Naturally, some who are reading this will guffaw at the notion of a YIMBY Conservative party. This is not unwarranted, given some of our MPs’ more militant NIMBY tendencies, but the Conservative Party’s strength has always been in redefining itself around the challenges of the day. Backing measures to increase density in inner London is the perfect sweet spot – providing the biggest economic boost whilst minimising outer London voters’ disgruntlement. 

Sceptics will say we cannot risk offending our voter base in an attempt to deliver for younger people and those living in inner London. I argue that the need for action will only become more pressing; the choice now is how long we swim against the rising tide. 

James Cowling is the Founder and Managing Director of Next Gen Tories and an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: jjfarq]
April 11, 2024

William Roberts: Expanding the UK’s Wider Public Health Workforce should be the next step in the Government’s public health strategy

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

This month, a landmark Bill got one step closer to becoming legislation. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, if enacted, has the potential to save thousands of lives and billions of pounds for the National Health Service (NHS). The creation of a ‘#SmokeFreeGeneration’ would protect young people from the dangers of tobacco and be a key building block of a healthier future. It would also build a lasting legacy for the Prime Minister, for Labour have promised to back the Bill.

Prevention lies at the heart of the Bill. It is prevention that holds the key to easing pressure on a healthcare system that is buckling under a backlog of cases and reduced staff capacity, to include a waiting list which currently stands at 7.6 million. It is a failure in prevention that lies at the heart of the surge in post-pandemic childhood obesity, and the sharp rise in the number of measles cases. 

Prevention needs to be the thread that runs through public policy when it comes to protecting our health. It is vital to building a healthier and more productive future.

But a productive future is not going to be possible without a healthy workforce. People in England’s most deprived neighbourhoods work longer hours than those in more affluent areas, but live shorter lives with more years in ill health, costing an estimated £30 billion a year to the economy in lost productivity and causing enormous harm.

Last month, the ONS published data showing that up to 3 million people were not looking for work due to ill health. This should cause deep concern. To get our economy moving again we need to put the health of the public further up the political agenda. More than that, public health needs to be everyone’s responsibility.

For millions of people in our workforce, it already is their responsibility. Allied health professionals, sports and fitness trainers, town and country planners, community health champions, emergency services, pest control workers, environmental health officers, cleaning and hygiene operatives and many more all do their bit to protect and promote better public health – sometimes without knowing it.

It is occupations like these that make up the UK’s Wider Public Health Workforce.  Working across a vast range of settings, environments and workplaces, the wider workforce makes a huge net contribution to protecting the health of the public. Expanding it should be the next step in the UK Government’s public health strategy. There are up to 1.5 million people in the wider workforce that could help support better public health outcomes with more training and support. A national workforce strategy for the whole public health workforce would be a cost-effective, bold policy move from the Government and would be cost effective.

Whether it is making sure our food is safe to eat, the air we breathe is clean, the communal spaces we use are hygienic or the places we live in are designed with our wellbeing in mind, the wider workforce do a huge amount of work that isn’t always recognised. Yet they are not considered specialists in public health and their impact is not taken into account when making health policy.

The Royal Society for Public Health has recently published a report outlining how the Government can tap into the huge potential in the Wider Public Health Workforce. 

First, the UK and devolved nation governments ought to develop a cross-sector national strategy for the whole UK Public Health Workforce. This would include business, public health and other industries.

Second, the public health sector and relevant government departments ought to think collectively about how to resource, upskill and empower the Wider Public Health Workforce to maximise their impact. 

Third, the Wider Public Health Workforce should be better recognised as contributing to public health and prevention.

And last, the Wider Public Health Workforce needs clearer routes into public health and ways to develop and be recognised for its expertise in public health. These would also create better career development opportunities and progression into more specialised public health roles.

We want more people to develop and grow their public health skills. A better skilled workforce will be a net positive for society. It will ultimately help reduce pressure on the healthcare system as the wider workforce has a key role to play in prevention. 

Policymakers have nothing to lose and everything to gain when it comes to investing in public health. Doing nothing to address the UK’s declining health is going to cost us much more in the long term. 

William Roberts is the CEO of the Royal Society for Public Health.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Studio Romantic]
April 8, 2024

Callum Westood: Politicians must stop shirking responsibility for decision-making – the case of the OBR and Bank of England

By Centre Write, Economy & Finance

For many years, Westminster has been enthralled with the idea of “taking the politics out of” various realms of decision-making. The prevailing narrative argues that independent bodies help avoid the day-to-day grind of Westminster politicking, the transitory influence of focus groups and opinion polls and the short-termism which is embedded in Parliament. However, de-politicisation means we miss out on important benefits of political decision-making: electoral accountability, voter representation and transparency.

The ongoing public sector pay disputes have highlighted that navigating state spending on the NHS is incredibly political and cannot be left to unelected experts. Decisions on these matters, where public, taxpayer’s money is concerned, demand democratic accountability. 

There are multiple areas of politics where significant power has been transferred from elected politicians to unelected officials, but one of the most significant is fiscal and monetary policy. In the realm of fiscal policy, whether we raise or cut taxes is a decision we would assume is accompanied by high levels of democratic accountability. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – the organisation responsible for setting the limits for changes to fiscal policy – is essentially free from accountability and scrutiny.

A recent review of the work of the OBR has highlighted that the Budget Responsibility Committee exercises “a vice-like grip over the UK’s economic levers,” having recently sent ‘a warning shot to Conservatives’ considering tax cuts and told the Government to cut benefits. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt referenced the OBR’s forecasts over 50 times during his Autumn Statement to the House of Commons in 2023, also discussing the ‘headroom’ that the Chancellor will be ‘allowed’ in the Spring Budget by these forecasts.

Yet, OBR forecasts are never 100% accurate and we should not expect them to be. Between 2010 and 2023, the OBR’s one-year budget forecasts misjudged UK economic growth by £558 billion. Their forecasts are so incorrect that the average yearly error is equivalent to the combined contribution of the British auto manufacturing, agricultural and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries. This is not because the OBR is any worse at analysis than other forecasters, but because they are in the business of estimation. Our public debate and political system must recognise that we should not bestow so much influence on a single body which was established for the purposes of forecasting.

Another area where politicians have shirked responsibility is monetary policy. Until 1997, monetary policy was within the remit of the Treasury. Then Labour made the Bank of England ‘independent’ by transferring power to set interest rates to the Bank’s ‘Monetary Policy Committee.’

It seems the Government has forgotten just how political monetary policy is. Interest rates are hugely influential on the public finances, although their greatest impact is on households. Recent increases in the ‘base rate’ have seen fixed-rate mortgage payers renewing their payments at 6.5% or higher. The recent rate-raising campaign by the Bank of England has seen many households paying an additional £500 per month for their mortgage.

If burdening homeowners with additional mortgage expense was not political enough, higher interest rates also widen inequality. This is because lower income workers are more likely to be in ‘problem debt’, which they will now pay higher rates on. Meanwhile pensioners and high earners, who are already typically wealthy, will benefit from the higher interest payments they receive on their savings.

This would not be such an issue if the Bank of England was an accountable institution. However, the individual responsible for rate changes and their detrimental effects on households – the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey – cannot be voted out or even sacked by the Prime Minister. Whilst the Governor is subject to a degree of scrutiny via Select Committees, we must ask whether it is appropriate that the power to set policy, influencing the finances of millions of Britons, rests with someone unaccountable to voters and someone who is practically unimpeachable until the end of his contract in 2028.

The OBR and Bank of England are just two examples of elected politicians handing off power and responsibility for decisions which are deeply political. Each demonstrates, to differing degrees, the undemocratic culture of “taking the politics out of” decision-making processes, which have profoundly political consequences for business, families and working people.

Politicians are far from perfect, and are often not the best listeners or critical thinkers that Britain has to offer. But, their singular overriding quality which outshines all others is that, when they get it wrong, voters can boot them out. The electoral accountability of MPs means their decisions are likely to be more representative and transparent than those made by ‘experts’ behind closed doors. 

Westminster must stop relying on undemocratic bodies to shape policy. It is time that those who are democratically accountable started acting with the authority given to them by the electorate.

Callum Westwood is the winner of Bright Blue’s Tamworth Prize 2023.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Photocreo Bednarek]
April 3, 2024

Bella Wallersteiner: Israel stands alone in the Middle East on protecting LGBT rights

By Centre Write, Foreign, Human Rights & Discrimination

Israel stands out in the Middle East region for its liberal LGBT laws; as such, supporting Israel should be a priority for those advocating for LGBT rights. However, when I made this point on social media a few days ago – as someone who also considers themselves part of the ‘LBGT’ umbrella – little did I know that I would end up receiving a barrage of hateful messages and abuse from pro-Palestine activists.

Their reason? The Eurovision Song Contest.

Over 450 queer artists, individuals and organisations have urged Olly Alexander, the UK’s Eurovision contestant, to boycott this year’s competition in a show of solidarity with Palestine. Signatories of an open letter, including Maxine Peake and Sarah Schulman, have called on the singer to withdraw from the May contest due to the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The letter, shared on Instagram by the account ‘Queers for Palestine,’ urges Alexander to heed the Palestinian call for withdrawal from Eurovision, citing concerns over a state allegedly involved in apartheid and genocide.

In truth, the rights and wellbeing of the Palestinian people rightly demands international attention. However, conflating this with Israel’s participation in Eurovision is misguided and counterproductive.

First and foremost, let us address the elephant in the room: Hamas. As a terrorist organisation, Hamas has a long history of violence and oppression. It openly advocates for the destruction of Israel and routinely targets innocent civilians, particularly members of the LGBT community. So forgive me if I refuse to bow down to the demands of an organisation that actively seeks to erase people like me from existence.

Now, let us talk about Israel. Contrary to the narrative pushed by activist groups, Israel is a beacon of hope and progress in the Middle East when it comes to LGBT rights. In a region where homosexuality is often punishable by death, Israel stands as a shining example of tolerance and acceptance.

In Israel, LGBT individuals are protected by anti-discrimination laws, have the right to serve openly in the military and can legally adopt children. Tel Aviv, the country’s vibrant cultural hub, hosts one of the largest Pride celebrations in the world, attracting thousands of people from across the globe. This is not tokenism; this is real, tangible progress. Nonetheless, it is Israel that the aforementioned Queers for Palestine want to boycott.

Why should Israel be punished for its commitment to equality? Should LGBT individuals in Israel be denied the opportunity to participate in Eurovision because of a war they have no control over? The answer is simple: they should not.

I refuse to be silenced by hate. I refuse to let a vocal minority dictate what I can and cannot say. And, most importantly, I refuse to turn my back on a country that has done more for the LGBT community than their neighbours.

To my fellow LGBT individuals: do not let anyone tell you who you can and cannot support. Our community is built on love and acceptance, not division and hatred. So, stand tall, speak out and never apologise for defending what you believe in. Israel, I stand with you. And I always will.

Isabella Wallersteiner is an Associate Fellow at Bright Blue.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Author]
April 2, 2024

Lachlan Rurlander: Forget 2024. The wipeout for the Tories could be 2029

By Centre Write, Politics

As anyone who has ever spent any time in university Conservative societies will tell you, it is sometimes tempting to believe that the only young people who vote Conservative are affected Churchill wannabes, with pocket watches, pipes, and perhaps a pince-nez.

Such a claim would be unfair – or at least it would have been in any election so far. But among young voters the Conservatives now face record low support. This is one of the reasons why in 2024, the Conservatives are facing bitter defeat. But it could mean that in 2029, the party could face wipeout.

A recent poll carried out at Whitestone Insight of 13,534 British adults revealed things look extremely dim for the Conservatives among younger voters. Of the 18-24s we surveyed, only 8% said they planned to vote for the Conservatives. Among 25–34-year-olds, it was a dismal 6%. 

To put this in context, in 2019, 19% of 18-24s who voted in that election voted for the Conservatives. And this was with Jeremy Corbyn, star of Glastonbury, offering free university tuition to all students. Even then the Conservatives clung on to almost one in five 18–24-year-olds. 

2019 itself represented a then record low showing for the Conservatives among this age group. From the heady heights of 35% support in the 1992 election, the Conservatives have never been a favourite of the young, but they have always secured a somewhat solid proportion of young people to put a cross in the box for their local Tory candidate. 

Even in 1997, at the crest of the New Labour wave, the Conservatives still managed to convince 27% of 18–24-year-olds, who voted in that election, to vote for them.

The question of how the Conservatives have got themselves into such a state among the young is evident from the policies they have prioritised over successive parliaments.

Firstly, Brexit was never going to be a vote winner among the young, and successive Governments’ chronic and well-documented inability to build any houses has left record numbers of young people with crippling rents, or still at home with their parents. Similarly, placing wealthy pensioners’ needs over and above the needs of students has not helped either — especially their seemingly undying attachment to the triple-lock.

For a while, the Conservative Party could largely ignore younger voters and live in blissful denial that doing so would ever come to bite them back. 

Now, the Conservatives’ very survival might be at risk  — not in 2024, but in 2029. This will be when their current voter base has, to put it crudely, died, and these younger voters, who currently do not intend to vote Conservative, will most likely still not be on the housing ladder, not have seen an above inflation pay rise, will be struggling to pay the bills, and possibly even be about to be conscripted into a war they do not want to fight in. 

To add to future Tory trouble, there is a good chance that Labour, whether it has a majority or relies on SNP or Liberal Democrat MPs, will extend voting rights to 16-year-olds. Conservatives will find that the mountain to climb in 2029 will only become steeper. 

Labour could go one step further and allow EU nationals living in the UK to vote in general elections as well. Conservatives in that situation could face oblivion. 

More than that, it would be difficult for any party of the right to gain traction in that scenario. It would face a triple-pronged challenge: reduced support from current 18-35-year-olds, extra votes for 16- and 17-year-olds, and EU nationals voting in domestic elections. 

The years between the 2024 and 2029 elections must be the time in which conservatives of all stripes finally take this generational threat extremely seriously. Obviously, there are many unknowns in the five years of exile which almost certainly lie ahead. Labour might undo themselves and there is every possibility that for 18–35-year-olds Keir Starmer loses his appeal, for some reason we cannot yet see.

But that does not mean the Conservatives can be complacent – they must be the opposite. A thorough analysis of what has been so effective at turning off young voters over the last 14 years would be a good place to start. In the end, it comes down to the fundamentals: competency and the economy.  

On both of these measures, the Conservatives have failed to deliver for young people. As a party, five years in opposition must be used wisely — avoiding lurching to the left or to the right, instead considering how best to champion conservatism for a new generation. If the party fails to get it right, there may be no coming back.

 

Lachlan Rurlander undertook work experience with Bright Blue in 2020, and tweets @rurlander.

Views expressed in this article are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Bright Blue.

[Image: Pixel-Shot]
March 28, 2024
Close Menu