Surviving the jungle

Thinking and talking about a clear and holistic definition of fairness could help politicians to navigate the challenges facing them in 2025

Since taking power in July last year, the Labour government has often been accused of lacking vision, or of failing to communicate its vision to the public. I believe that a fleshed-out definition of fairness can form of the basis of such a vision, and can help politicians of all parties to communicate their goals - and the policies that they think are needed to achieve them - to a public that is sceptical of politics but is simultaneously crying out for bold leadership.

Fairness is hard-wired into us. Humans evolved by building large social groups that depend on fair co-operation and rewarding positive behaviour. Study after study shows that fairness is at the top of most people's priorities for society. Its absence has animated almost every public and political controversy over recent years, from the cost-of-living crisis to Partygate and the Post Office Horizon scandal.

A sceptic might argue that fairness is unifying because its lack of definitional clarity allows people to interpret it in very different ways, to suit their own beliefs and priorities. So those on the right might focus on fair process, while those on the left worry more about fair outcomes, and no one really knows what fair opportunity actually means.

I think that it is possible to define fairness in a way that speaks to this range of views, while bringing people together around a broad platform that most people can support.

---

When I set up the Fairness Foundation in 2021, I spent months researching the concept and talking to people from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. This led to the development of a definition of fairness based on five fair necessities:

The first is fair essentials. This means that everyone should have their basic needs met so that no one lives in poverty, and everyone can play a constructive role in society.

The second is fair opportunities. Everyone should have a decent chance to succeed in life, so we should remove the key barriers to equal opportunities.

The third is fair rewards. Everyone’s hard work should be rewarded on the basis of their contribution to our society and economy.

The fourth is fair exchange. Everyone should contribute to society by paying the taxes they owe, and in return be supported by society when they need it.

The fifth is fair treatment. Everyone should be treated according to need, enjoying equal respect and equal influence on decisions made in their name.

We polled the British public in April 2022 and found that three in four Britons supported these principles, with less than 10% opposed to them. Lots of our polling since then has backed this up, on a range of issues from wealth inequality to health.

---

These five components of fairness can act as the basis for a vision of the future, but they can also provide a useful framework for assessing policy options, working out trade-offs, identifying political and implementation risks, and developing a strong narrative to sell a particular policy to the public and to key stakeholders.

I think that governments and opposition parties alike would benefit from thinking about potential policies - or how to react to them - with the five ‘fair necessities’ in mind. For example, had this approach been taken to some of the more controversial policies introduced over recent months - such as the changes to the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, the removal of agricultural reliefs on inheritance tax, and the decision not to compensate ‘WASPI women’ affected by increases in the state pension age - the government might have either done something different, or been better informed about the political risks and so done a better job of selling the policy changes to the media and to the wider public.

For example, looking at the WASPI women, the government could have thought and talked more about whether the change in state pension age (and the specific issue of when and how it was communicated to them) has:

• Led to any of them facing poverty (a violation of the principle of fair essentials)

• Prevented any of them from having the opportunity to maximise their potential (a violation of the principle of fair opportunities)

• Under-rewarded them for their contribution to our economy and society during their working lives (a violation of the principle of fair rewards)

• Denied any of them from the support from the state that they might expect in return for their tax contributions (a violation of the principle of fair exchange)

• Treated them without respect, dignity, or an appreciation of their specific needs (a violation of the principle of fair treatment)

These judgements need to be made in the broader context of the issues affecting the group in question, not just in isolation. For example, looking at the impact on farmers of the removal of agricultural reliefs on inheritance tax is fairly meaningless without taking a broader look at how fairly farmers have been treated more broadly over recent years. And fairness considerations can also help politicians to identify and navigate trade-offs between different groups (such as the broader public’s need for decent public services, which in turn requires a fair and effective tax system).

Taking a ‘fairness lens’ to difficult issues should ultimately help politicians to appeal to a shared sense of common purpose, rather than pitting one group against another. Yet this kind of rhetoric is often absent from our political debate. As we identified in an analysis of how British politicians talk about fairness, politicians often (mis)use the language of fairness to divide rather than to bring people together, by talking about fairness for very specific groups in a way that excludes other members of society from this implicit social contract.

The ‘fair necessities’ aren’t just useful for politicians, or for civil servants and other public policy professionals. They’re also a potent tool for the private sector, including for investors. Recently, the Thames Estuary Growth Board constructed their new strategy - the Five Point Plan for Fair Growth and Investment - around our five components of fairness. This initiative is gaining real momentum, and we are keen to build on it with other partners who would benefit from considering a rounded definition of fairness when designing and communicating their strategies.