Thousands of Labour party members, trade unionists, and those in the parliamentary party have been receiving their leadership voting forms. Their collective decision will have a big impact on UK politics and possibly on Britain itself. Last night, Channel 4 held the last TV debate between the leadership candidates. David Miliband most impressed with his talk of redistributing power, wanting to talk about the future and acceptance that Labour needs a credible debt reduction plan.

David Miliband: The ‘Red Tory’ candidate

By previously criticising New Labour’s “paternalist authoritarianism”, where government is promoted as being the only possible problem solver, Miliband has offered the sharpest Labour analysis of his government’s greatest failure. The logical next step to this critique is one that is at the heart of Red Tory thinking: the redistribution of power and responsibility so that we all have a part in achieving a better society. He took this next step during the Keir Hardie Lecture in July:

“We need a creed that could combine solidarity with responsibility, freedom and equality. Without community ethics, lived and upheld, it is difficult to generate the civility we value. I take Big Society seriously.”

As the rhetoric in the leadership race has lurched left-wards David Miliband has not felt comfortable enough to develop his “Good Society” theme, but neither has he rejected it. The other candidates have fallen into the comfortable trap of violently rejecting everything the coalition does, and using the same bitter tone towards the Lib Dems that a jilted lover would use to describe her cheating ex. This type of yah-boo politics is emotionally satisfying but it does not appeal to the electorate at large.

David Miliband for Leader

On 25 September I want David Miliband to be crowned Labour leader.  Cameron is rightly concerned that David Miliband has the best chance of making Labour a real alternative government. Tim Montgomerie in yesterday’s Times pointed out by signing-up to Alistair Darling’s – a Labour politician who is still very well thought of by the public – debt reduction plan, it’s harder for the Tories to paint a David Miliband-led Labour as deficit deniers. In politics, as in life, the best results are achieved when there is strong competition. Would Thatcherism have been a more rounded ideology if she faced a credible social democratic opposition who supported economic reform, but also the inclusion of a caring hand in the free market? Could Tony Blair have gotten away with his attention-deficit sofa style government – or authoritarian streak – if the Tories had picked someone of Ken Clarke’s calibre?

For me Cameron’s red TORY ideas will always be preferable to Miliband’s RED tory vision, but I look forward to the argument. The tectonic plates that represent UK political consensus are shifting. Let the proper political debate begin!

The IFS has recently released a report criticising the Coalition’s claim that the budget was “progressive” by stating that it will hit the poor hardest. Instead of criticising the IFS’ work, I believe it is more appropriate to discuss why any genuinely progressive government needs to reform the country and that only through reform can we tackle the structural problems in society.

The first tranche of reform came in the 1980s with the major liberalisation of the British economy. This freed up enterprise and risk takers and created a new and burgeoning middle class. It also was in an era of unbelievable ideological battles between the forces of collectivism and those of liberalism. Ultimately the latter won, but it left a bitter legacy for millions of British people who only remember unemployment, wasted lives and broken families.

The second tranche of reform begins today and we have learnt from the experience of the 1980s. The most vulnerable to change in society cannot be cast off because while some rise to the challenge, others fall by the wayside. The Coalition has been explicit in focusing on the needs of the most vulnerable in society at the expense of “easy” reform.

The most vulnerable in society are not just the poorest, but also the aspirational and middle classes. The recession has resulted in many Britons with lower incomes than before. Higher living costs mean that many are wary of what the future holds. People who have mortgages know that the low rates will not continue forever, but are fearful that they will not only be unable to afford higher interest rates but that they will be unable to realise any capital gains on the sale of their property. Indeed, the most vulnerable are not only those who are reliant on government largesse, but are many who have barely survived the most brutal downturn since the 1930s.

The people I have identified above are not only the most vulnerable; they are the forgotten people in Britain. They are forgotten because they do not have unions and others advocating for them. They are forgotten because the media bypass them. They are forgotten because they get the occasional outpouring of righteous indignation from politicians, only to see any promise of a New Jerusalem soon whither away to the stark reality of modern life. Luckily, these people are now at the heart of the Coalition’s agenda. Rather than the patronising smile of a Labour politician handing out cheques and then abandoning them to their fate, they will get a Coalition politician who understands the problems and the struggles and who does not leave them to fend for themselves.

The Coalition will be undertaking a second tranche of structural reform. The first achieved a liberalisation of the economy. The second is about converting the State into local community organisations and about achieving structural social change. The biggest problem with the past Government was their assumption that every problem could be handled centrally and that a State is most effective when dictating outcomes irrespective of the needs of individuals. This is simply wrong.

No two communities are the same and therefore public services cannot be universally applied in the same way. “Equality of outcome” is not universal public services with no difference in what is being offered, but rather public services that match the needs of the local community, that are socially and economically sustainable and that acknowledge the uniqueness of local communities. This idea, commonly known as the “Big Society”, combines the best of Conservative and Liberal intellectual thought. It also learns the bitter lessons of previous years and the accumulated wisdom of past experience.

Welfare reform is a major step to change the social culture of this country towards effort, hard-work and enterprise. The State now acts as a giant spin cycle with money coming in from taxpayers only to be spat out to the same taxpayers. This creates a reliance on government handouts for financial security irrespective of need. It also creates a reliance on handouts to maintain a standard of living. This will now change.

Education reform will see the most radical transformation in schooling in generations. It will allow individual’s unique talents to be properly appreciated in schools that match those talents rather than be forced to certain schools as a glorified social engineering project. Do not forget that the current system is designed for social engineering – yet humanity is too complex, too dynamic, to be fine-tuned like a motor. By forcing parents to go to a bad school the inevitable outcomes are parents who pretend to hold religious beliefs or to move house to secure a good school place. Parents care more about their children than the State ever could. These school reforms will help parents without punishing them. It is about liberating families across the country from the dead hand of government bureaucracy.

The economic reforms are about making our public finances sustainable for the long-term. We are facing massive challenges in welfare, education, pensions, energy, infrastructure and many other areas. Raising expectations about permanently high government spending is unrealistic, is unsustainable and is unfair. What on earth is fair about leaving the next generation with over £1 trillion in debt?

This government is progressive. It combines the best Liberal and Conservative traditions and despite what people think, it is a government that will create sustainable, long-term jobs in the face of an economic catastrophe and will help the forgotten people of this country.

This fuss over the ‘landmine’ of the Equality Act is completely ridiculous. The Act doesn’t require anything beyond a consideration of how government actions impact on people – which frankly is something I would expect any halfway competent politician to do anyway.

I think there is an argument to be had about the way that governments expect to pull a lever and have a wide-spread social effect – but it’s not specifically that Act.

More widely, I think the furore shows us something instructive about how Labour and the Conservatives approach society.

Labour is all about phrasing , not delivering , and just showing that they ‘care’; and requiring; and splitting people up into discrete little groups so politicians can try to target what are effectively bribes at them.

Conservatives are about making sure that overall, people have the opportunity to make of themselves whatever they want. It’s not about putting people in boxes – it’s about making sure that they all have equal opportunity to break out of whatever box they have been abandoned to by Labour.

The Emergency Budget was – let’s face it – tough on everyone. It had to be. The problem is not that our taxes were too low, but that our spending was too high.

There are a few things that strike me as obvious but which clearly aren’t for some – firstly, that to make work pay you have to make sure that living on benefits becomes less attractive: that doesn’t mean punitive, but it does mean, for example, that lavish housing benefits far beyond what people in good jobs can afford have to go. Secondly, that of course when you cut spending, those who use public services the most would be disproportionately affected if you make no other changes to reform those public services in order that they deliver better (this is the great argument that Betapolitics has been advancing in recent weeks). And finally, that when bodies like the IFS have considered fairness and progressiveness, they only look at what the state pays out. Why don’t they look at the opportunities for growth, for better jobs, for more social mobility as well?

It isn’t all about the state. It is all about society.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, believes we are at a watershed moment in politics. The Big Society agenda is bringing to the fore the debate around how best to facilitate social good. For Williams, at the heart of this agenda is the conviction that for society to change the dominant individualistic narrative needs to be replaced. People must recognise how they depend on each other and realise what we owe each other. A Big Society is one where everyone is aware of the importance of interdependence.

The Archbishop was speaking at an event last Friday organised by the Charities Parliament, entitled “How should churches respond to Big Society?” The church’s interpretation and reaction to Cameron’s flagship policy is of great importance because, to use Big Society parlance, the church is a long-existing, large network of interconnected hubs, which are organised around social entrepreneurs who deliver enabling services to the community they live in. Or to use everyday language, the Church is made up of many active communities, consisting of good people, who are doing good things.

Big Society Values

The Church judges the Big Society idea against its values and spiritual beliefs. While politicians tend to tread nervously around the subject of collective values this is natural territory for religion. Rowan Williams explained how the New Testament tells Christians that the kind of society God is interested in is one where people have a keen understanding of others’ needs. The poverty of one person is an issue for everyone. Archbishop Williams used the analogy that if one part of the body is in pain the whole body suffers. For him common good in society is best developed in real empathy, so what is good for them is good for us and ultimately good for me.

Bob Reitemeier, Chief Executive of The Children’s Society, listed three fundamental values that will define the Church’s engagement with the Big Society agenda:

1) Love (or the obligation to care for others)

2) Justice/Fairness (or love in action through putting right wrongs)

3) Forgiveness (or casting aside the barriers, including prejudices, that impinge on doing good)

Whether you are religious or not you will only buy into the Big Society concept if you understand and support the values which underpin it. These values can be summed up in secular terms as broadly being personal responsibility on the one hand and caring for the disadvantaged on the other. A new political settlement based on these values is necessary because the former was undermined by the nanny state and the latter by free market capitalism.

Government’s Role in Society

Archbishop Williams took a swipe at both the statist side of Labour and the free-market obsession of some Conservatives. He described as poisonous the ideas that the only possible provider of good is Government, and that there is no such thing as society, just individuals. Labour’s over-controlling approach had disempowered and disconnected many people. Rowan Williams said: “If people are told that they have nothing to contribute to society then you won’t get very far. If you give people everything then there will be dependency.” Williams felt it was right for people to be cautious about the “Big Society” agenda until we are sure that it will not be used by the Coalition as an alibi for cost-cutting and to enable the Government to wash its hands of responsibility. He hopes that Big Society will be what its political proponents claim it to be and that the ideas behind it receive appropriate investment but – like many – the Archbishop still needs some reassurance.

The purpose of Government in the Big Society should be to sustain the vision that our society is a community of communities. For Rowan Williams: “Government is there to make the right connections and to ensure that these connections work”. This was an unknowing big thumbs-up for the type of work the government-promoted Big Society Network is engaged in. This suggests a certain symmetry in thinking between the Church and the Coalition on the Government’s role in fostering Big Society.

Getting the Best Out of People

Archbishop Williams believes that we need to have a clear sense of what sort of people we want to see in our society. The right characteristics and behaviours need to be nourished. For Big Society to become an ingrained part of the British way of life there needs to be investment in education and personal growth. Rowan Williams made it clear that he did not mean throwing money at education; instead he placed importance on policy-makers thinking laterally about how people learn within communities. He echoed the view of Phillip Blond by emphasising the supreme importance of giving people the capacity to shape their environment. The way Government encourages people to take control of the resources in their lives will be critical for growing further resources within society.

Natural Big Society-ers

The first step for anyone in embracing the Big Society agenda is to buy into its values. This is easy for the Church as it has been preaching the importance of giving for centuries and they are well experienced in promoting social justice. I left the event with the strong impression that Christians do not need an answer to the question “what does Big Society mean?” or to be convinced that it is important for them to help improve their community. What the Church needs to know is whether substantive actions will follow Cameron’s words and what part they will be expected to play in this new world.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s proposals for penal reform have landed him in hot water with some of the self anointed ‘tough on crime’ brigade. In a speech to the Centre for Crime and Justice recently, Clarke challenged conventional wisdom stretching back over two decades. Eschewing the ‘prison works’ rhetoric of one of his predecessors Michael Howard, the new Justice Secretary called for greater use of community service to reduce both prison numbers and re-offending rates.

Let us be clear, there is a role for prison both to protect society from some of its most violent individuals and also to act as a deterrent.

I subscribe to the view that a prison sentence should be something to fear – there should be no toleration of drugs in jail, no perception that you are met with a stay full of life’s little luxuries and life sentences for murder should mean just that. There also needs to be an equally strong phase of rehabilitation and re-education prior to any release. Recent examples have shown the perilous potential results of premature release.

Over-crowded prisons and high re-offending rates however characterise the British penal system. Whilst we haven’t quite reached the dramatic US level whereby almost 1 in 100 adults are in jail, the prison population in the UK is now one of the highest in Western Europe and the highest it has been in British history. The number of inmates has more than doubled since 1993 from 40,000 to over 85,000. 20,000 inmates share cells designed for one and since 2007 80,000 criminals have been released early to ease over-crowding. That we can’t focus our energies to imprisoning those that actually should be there and instead are releasing violent criminals early due to financial pressures is scandalous. We could learn a lot from the Dutch model which has seen both a deliberate fall in prison numbers (and an emphasis on community sentencing) accompanied by a fall in crime.

Driving the astronomical rise in the prison population in the UK  is the proliferation of custodial sentences and especially short sentences. Two thirds of those in prison are there for less than a year and the majority of those are there for less than three months. Many of these inmates leave prison for a life of unemployment, homelessness, and crime.

Many argue that prisons are increasingly no more than ‘criminal training academies’, solidifying rather than breaking the cycle of crime. Re-offending rates in this country are alarming. Over 40% of inmates will re-offend within twelve months of release or 60% of those serving short sentences. This is the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome as the same people pass through jail several times. Despite New Labour’s pledge to be ‘tough on the causes of crime’, rehabilitation remains frustrated by a lack of funds and prison over-crowding.

The wider social impact is a serious if under-publicised issue. An estimated 160,000 children have at least one parent in prison and are three times as likely to engage in anti-social or delinquent behaviour than their peers. 65% of boys with convicted fathers go on to offend themselves.

Clarke blames the ‘bang ‘em up’ mentality of the past two decades which if allowed to continue will see the prison population rise to near 100,000 in five years. While he acknowledges that the prevailing wisdom is not completely misguided he does challenge a key underlying assumption, namely that a correlation exists between prison numbers and crime rates. While it is true that from 1993 prison numbers doubled while crime rates halved, from 1951 to 1971 prison numbers also doubled and crime rates trebled. Not unreasonably Clarke argues there are more important factors influencing crime rates.

This clears the way for greater use of community service to deter, rehabilitate, and reduce prison numbers. This approach has senior judicial support. The former Lord Chief Justice Woolf argued in 2007 that custodial sentences should be reserved for ‘violent criminals’. Otherwise sentences should be reduced and tough community punishments applied in far more cases.

Nearly two decades since Michael Howard fired the starting pistol of a rampant rise in the prison population, and with mounting evidence that conventional ‘wisdom’ is no longer working, Ken Clarke’s considered, evidence-based intervention is highly welcome.

 Marcus Booth is a former Co-Chairman of the Conservative City Circle Law Panel