Anticipations - Autumn 2008 by Young Fabians

LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE SPECIAL 2008

ANTICIPATIONS

from values to victory what sort of party does Labour have to be in order to win the next general election?

Autumn 2007 Volume 12 Issue 3

What is Britainâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s place in the world?

anticipations

AUTUMN 2008

CONTENTS 4 5 10 8 13 15 18 29 14 16 17 19 20 22 24 25 26 27 28 30 32 34

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises. The reposnsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. Published by The Fabian Society: 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN Telephone: 0207 227 4900 | Facsimile: 0207 976 7153

WORD FROM THE EDITOR Alex Baker

WORD FROM THE CHAIR Mark Rusling

YOUNG FABIAN POLICY COMMISSIONS Foreward by Mark Rusling

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY INTERVIEW - HARRIET HARMAN Speaking to David Chaplin

- Guest Contributors -

HIGH FIVE Chris Leslie

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS John Hitchin

UNITE TO WIN Rachel Reeves

WOMEN ARE NOT STUPID Ellie Levenson

- Young Fabian Contributors -

INVOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY Tom Ebutt

PAYING OFF Tom Marley

ASPIRATION NATION David Boot

WERE YOU UP FOR TWIGGY? Dan Whittle

THE STATE WE’RE IN James Green

VALUE JUDGEMENT Ashley Walsh

LESS IS MORE Omar Salem

IN A SPIN

Gavin Freeguard

ON THE ROAD TO NOWHERE Adrian Prandle

WEAK CONSTITUTION Peter Flynn

IT’S MY PARTY AND IT’LL DIE IF IT WANTS TO Alex Baker

OTHER ARTICLES

REDEFINING SOVEREIGNTY Samuel Dale

REPORTS FROM EVENTS Richard Messingham

SCHOOLS PROJECT UPDATE James Green

www.fabian-society.org.uk and www.youngfabians.org.uk Printed by: Caric Press Ltd Lionheart Close, Bearwood, Bournemouth, Dorset BH11 9UB The editor would like to thank: Harriet Harman and her office, Chris Leslie, Rachel Reeves, Young SERA, and Ellie Levenson Images from www.sxc.hu used throughout this publication.

anticipations

FROM THE EDITOR Alex Baker abaker@youngfabians.org.uk

“

The next edition will focus on an issue that I know to be close to many Young Fabians’ hearts - that of the Make Poverty History campaign and the wider millenium development goals of the UN

”

o this is the final edition this year’s set of Anticipations. So far this year we have managed to produce an incredibly high quality set of journals which have covered topics such as Britain’s place in the World, equality, and most recently security. As delegates prepare to descend on Manchester for the annual Labour Party Conference, this edition turns its focus to the next general election. In particular, the sort of party Labour needs to be in order to win the next general election - how it turns its values in victory. The quality of submissions is again high, and given this is a conference edition, we have not only expanded the number of pages (and hence submissions) contained within this edition, but also extended the print run. This edition also sees us interview the current deputy leader of the Labour party - Harriet Harman - who managed to find some time in her incredibly busy schedule for us. We are grateful to her for her thoughts on the party. The interview - like Liam Byrne’s last issue - has been recorded and will be made available as a podcast on our website - www.youngfabians. org.uk. You’ll no doubt get an email about it in due course once it has been uploaded, but in the meantime there is an ever-increasing amount of content on the website for you to enjoy. This issue we also have guest contributions from Chris Leslie - former MP and co-ordinator of Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign - and Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West at the next general election. Young SERA

have also submitted an article on the importance of environmental issues, and Ellie Levenson, freelance journalist extraordinaire, has written about a new project she is involved with to do with access to contraception. My thanks extend to all these contributors, as well as to the many Young Fabian members who have committed pen to paper this time around. Writing for Anticipations is easier than you might think. If you fancy trying your hand, then the first thing you should do is email your idea to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk. Once the topic has been agreed and the submission commissioned, then you should go away and write it (guidelines are available on the website). Then it designed up and printed. Simple. If you are interested in writing, then please please please do not just go away and write something as it is important the editor is aware of what submissions are being sent his/her way. We cannot guarantee speculative submissions will be printed. The next edition will focus on an issue that I know to be close to many Young Fabians’ hearts - that of the Make Poverty History campaign and the wider millenium development goals of the UN. There was much fanfare in 2005 when the Make Poverty History campaign was launched, including action at the G8 and concerts the world over. Yet three years on, now is the time to examine the impact of the campaign and assess how we are going to achieve the ambitions set out in the MDGs. Especially given it is unclear that such worthy humanitarian targets may not now be achieved.

So perhaps you may wish to write about whether or not Make Poverty History worked? Whether or not the Millenium Development Goals are appropriately set? You might have views on the action or inaction of governments in pursuing humanitarian aims. Whatever you idea, please drop an email to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk. Submissions need to be complete by November 14th, so if you intend on writing something, then please do email sooner rather than later with your idea. Given this is my last issue for the current executive year, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped to make the journal what it is, including everyone who has sent in an article over the past 12 months. I certainly hope the quality continues to remain high over the volumes of Anticipations to come. Special thanks should also go to the other executive members who have given up many a good evening to help stuff the magazines into envelopes and get them all dispatched to you. If you have any feedback on the journal, then please feel free to provide it. It is always useful to hear what you think about the publication. Finally, despite my call to arms last issue, I haven’t had many responses on the photographer front. So if you fancy being a photographer for the Young Fabians and have some decent kit which you can use to catalogue our events, then please get in touch and send some samples of your work. For all those who are going to conference, do enjoy yourself And make sure you check out the Young Fabian events on offer over the weekend.

FROM THE CHAIR

Mark Rusling mrusling@youngfabians.org.uk

hope you are all well and have enjoyed the summer personally, if not politically. Writing in August, it is impossible to be certain that there will not be major political upheavals before you read this in September – a measure of Gordon Brown’s troubles. For me, the Prime Minister’s unpopularity stems more from a lack of focus on one core theme and three or four core policies than from the content of those policies. For sure, the ‘10p tax’ decision was a short-term debacle, but this has obscured the areas in which the Government has produced long-term initiatives. Whether you agree or disagree with their proposals, Lord Darzi’s plans for the next 10 years of the NHS, and James Purnell’s ideas for benefits reform exhibit the type of long-term thinking which must be shown if the public is to be convinced that the Government has a purpose other than self-preservation. A well-communicated focus on fairness – rumoured to be unveiled in the autumn – could provide that purpose. This must explicitly address inequality of opportunity – after all, what is more unfair than a society in which life chances are determined at birth? The Government’s difficulties mean that it is vital that Labour Conference in Manchester presents a positive, united party to the electorate. A conference defined by backstabbing and division will not convince voters that this is, after all, a Government that they want to trust with Britain’s next five years. All sections of the Party – PLP, Government, unions and members – must pull together. The Young Fabians are doing our bit at Conference by bringing together young political and trade union activists

for a discussion on ‘Nothing to lose but our chains? Do Labour and trade unions share a vision of the future?’. Held in conjunction with Unison, the event will take place in the Britannia Hotel, Portland Street, Manchester, on Monday 22nd September from 6pm until 7:30pm. Our speakers will include Ed Miliband MP, and Rachel Reeves, PPC for Leeds West, and the discussion will be followed by a free reception. Do come along – Ed is staying for the reception and is very keen to hear your views on renewing the Labour Party. We will also be holding our usual Conference Reception. This is on Sunday 21st, from 7:30pm, and takes place at One Central Street, described by Elle magazine as “the most stylish bar in Manchester”! To grace the venue, our special guest will be Hazel Blears MP, surely the most stylish member of the Cabinet! All are welcome – drinks and food are free. If you are not able to come to Manchester, there’s no need to miss out. Follow my Conference blog at fabians.org.uk, where I will try to give a flavour of proceedings. Convincing voters that Labour hasn’t run out of energy and ideas after such a long period in power was always going to be difficult. However, the Government and Party have been admirably open in consulting organisations and individuals inside and outside the Labour movement over the next manifesto. The Young Fabians have played a leading role in this. We submitted a paper containing our policy suggestions to Ed Miliband – you can download a copy from www. youngfabians.org.uk. The final document represents the culmination of internal policy commission meetings and consul-

tations, meetings with the MP manifesto group chairs, two policy surgeries with Ed Miliband and our summer school in Birmingham in July, where we debated Labour’s values. The Young Fabian Schools Project, organised by James Green, has completed its youth consultation. We received 434 separate submissions from a variety of schools. James has worked with 21 MPs, ranging from backbenchers to Cabinet ministers, and will be arranging a Westminster event in October for the authors of the best submissions to meet with ministers and the Labour Party ViceChair for Youth, Dawn Butler MP. If you would like more information on the Project, contact James – jgreen@youngfabians.org.uk. So, this has been a turbulent political year for Labour, but it has been a fruitful one for the Young Fabians. We have held over 40 events, produced four excellent issues of Anticipations, created a new website, instituted the Schools Project and bi-monthly policy newsletter, and consulted on, and submitted, our manifesto paper. We will be capping off our year by travelling to the US to (hopefully) see Barack Obama win the presidential election for the Democrats. I hope you can join us. This is my final column as Chair. I have enjoyed my year immensely and have been hugely lucky to have worked with a supremely talented Executive. Give them all safe seats! Thank you to everybody who has contributed to the Young Fabians’ success this year, particularly my Vice-Chair, Kate Groucutt. Best of luck to next year’s Executive, and here’s to the fight-back and a fourth term for Labour!

“

In part due to Labour’s equalities legislation, the UK is now a more tolerant country than it was in 1997

”

anticipations

PORTUNITY•DEMOCRATISATION•PUBLIC MUNITY•EDUCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES BLIC SERVICES•PROGRESS•EDUCATION• EQUALITY•SOCIAL JUSTICE•OPPORTUN UCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES•COMMUNI EMOCRATISATION•PROGRESS•EQUALIT •SOCIAL JUSTICE•EDUCATION•EQUALI WELFARE•COMMUNITY•FULL EMPLOYM PORTUNITY•DEMOCRATISATION• MULT ULITLATERALISM•FREEDOM•RIGHTS•WE LIC SERVICES•PROGRESS•EDUCATION• FREEDOM•WELFARE•EQUALITY•OPPORT LOYMENT•RIGHTS•MULTILATERALISM •W MUNITY•EDUCATION•PUBLIC SERVICES OPPORTUNITY•PROGRESS•FAIRNESS•FU S•SOCIAL JUSTICE•FREE TRADE•COMM FARE•EQUALITY•RIGHTS•FREEDOM•CO FREEDOM•WELFARE•EQUALITY•OPPORT PLOYMENT•EDUCATION•MULTILATERAL TUNITY•PROGRESS•FAIRNESS•FULL EMP WELFARE•MULITLATERALISM•FREEDOM• OCIAL JUSTICE•OPPORTUNITY•EMPLOY

“

C SERVICES •WELFARE• When the headlines of the moment fade and the dust settles on the individual S•WELFARE •EDUCATIO controversies, this is where I will stand: for the changes that will make Britain a more prosperous economy for all, a fairer society to •COMMUNITY all, and a stronger community for all. NITY•EDUCATION•PUB ITY•WELFARE•MULITLA TY •SOCIAL JUSTICE•O ITY •PROGRESS •WELF MENT •SOCIAL JUSTICE TILATERALISM •EDUCAT ELFARE •FREEDOM •COMMUNITY •SOCIAL TUNITY WELFARE•MULITLATER S•WELFARE •SOCIAL ULL EMPLOYMENT FROM VALUES TO MUNITY •WELFARE•M OMMUNITY•MULITLA TUNITY •COMMUNITY LISM •WELFARE•MULIT PLOYMENT •MULTILAT •RIGHTS•WELFARE • YMENT •WELFAR

”

- Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP July 2008

VICTORY In recent years Labour has experienced unprecedented electoral success. However the next general election - whenever it is called - presents new challenges for a party that has become accustomed to victory and weak opposition. Recent events have weakened the so-called “winning coalition” that has propelled Labour to This issue examines what sort of party Labour needs to be in order to win the next general election: from values to victory. Contributions range from Labour’s relationship with the media, to transport policy; from environmentalism, to making better use of the resources available to the party. We also interview Harriet Harman MP QC, deputy leader of the Labour party - a woman well-placed to comment on the sort of party Labour should be heading into the next general election.

anticipations

INTERVIEW: HARRIET HARMAN QC

David Chaplin speaks to the current Deputy leader of the Labour party about the challenges the party faces

S Harriet Harman QC has been MP for Peckham since 1982. She is Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equality. Harriet is also Chair and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party.

Avaiable as a podcast at www.youngfabians.org.uk

“

Harriet makes it clear that she sees re-engaging with our grass roots as one of the most important challenges ahead for the Labour Party

”

triding out of her private office which sits deep in the heart of the Cabinet Office buildings on Whitehall, Harriet Harman has a mobile phone pressed firmly against her ear and is engrossed in conversation. Two days before Parliament rose for the summer recess and seven days before David Miliband’s high profile Guardian article, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party seemed relaxed as we began discussing her experience of the last twelve months since Tony Blair stood down as Prime Minister and Gordon Brown took over as leader of the Labour Party. Serving as an MP since 1982, Harriet is one of Labour’s longest serving female MPs. She began her Ministerial career in 1997 when Tony Blair made her Secretary of State for Social Security and after a period on the backbenches and subsequent reappointments she ended up as Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. However, her most recent incarceration is as winner of Labour’s Deputy Leadership contest in May 2007 following the resignation of John Prescott. She describes it as an “enormous privilege and a real honour” to be Deputy Leader, but makes clear that it has been “incredibly demanding”. No wonder. As well as recently covering for Gordon Brown at Prime Minister’s Questions she holds down a range of other responsibilities such as Party Chair and Leader of the House of Commons. But she makes clear, the most enjoyable part of her work is “going all round the country” as she did during the deputy leadership contest, “I have enjoyed continuing doing that…it’s been a great challenge knocking

on doors with Party members in by-elections, its one of the things that is really enjoyable.” Harriet makes it clear that she sees re-engaging with our grass roots as one of the most important challenges ahead for the Labour Party “…there will be a lot of discussion of this at conference. I think we really need to be grounded in a sense of confidence of what the Party has achieved in Government.” Communicating these achievements to our members and broader supporters is widely accepted as a growing challenge, and something that David Miliband addressed in his Guardian article. Harriet suggests that there are two things the Party can do immediately, firstly “believe that the country is a better place now than it was ten years ago, it’s fairer, people are better off, the schools are better, the hospitals are better – that didn’t come down with the rainfall – we did that.” Secondly, to “reassure people” that Labour is the Party to lead them through a difficult and uncertain economic period. “People are concerned about what’s going to happen in the future” she says, “difficult things are happening now with the economy, worries about food bills, fuel costs and the standard of living. But I think we should reassure people that we will see the economy through the storm”. Seeing the economy through the storm is likely to have been at the top of peoples mind when they cast their votes in the Glasgow East by-election which took place later that week. Harriet was quick to repeat that “confidence is absolutely the key” to turning our electoral performance around and said

she was looking forward to conference in September because it would be a chance to “map out a vision for the future – building on what we’ve done in the last ten years”. I suggested to Harriet that while the Government was talking about the standard of living, people were still interested in wider issues such as Labour’s ability to improve schools and hospitals. She responded that “Its jobs, and standard of living issues that are most important over the next 12 months. People do still want to see continuous improvements in health services and education, but I believe they can see that happening.” Harriet made a strong case that our most important job is to “define ourselves” and to “remind people of our proud record in Government.” But given the increasing discussions amongst Party supporters and commentators recently about communicating our message more effectively this could be more difficult than in the past. Harriet responds cautiously that “we have to look ahead and explain a vision for a more prosperous and fairer future”. But what about the threat from David Cameron and the Conservatives I asked her? Do we need to think more clearly about what divides us from the Tories? “Ok, at the same time we must point out how the Tories failed when they were in Government, they have no programme, vision or substance.” “So I think that our concern is to deliver on our promises, to live up to our core values, and at the same time, remind people of the shallowness and the risk they would be taking with the Tories.” An area in which she feels Labour is substantially ahead

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

of the Tories is equality. The week before, Harriet had launched her Equalities Bill which addresses discrimination and promotes fairness (a Brownite buzzword). I tentatively suggested to Harriet that abstract issues of equality might not resonate with voters at a time of economic difficulty, but she disagrees strongly, “The question of fairness is a British value as well as being rooted in the Labour Party, people being treated fairly and without discrimination is very much a cornerstone of our values in the Party.” On the criticism that it is ill-timed she continues “Some people would say that because the economy is under more pressure than it has been in the past, that we can’t therefore afford the equalities agenda, and that we have to get back to basics. But what I’m saying is that it is a core part of our basic agenda, when times are hard it’s even more important that people are treated fairly and that we are all in the same boat.” Issues of economic fairness have been popping-up since Gordon Brown promoted ‘fairness’ as a watchword for his premiership. The nondomicile tax rule, the abolition of the 10p tax band, and also discussion of scrapping inheritance tax and stamp duty have all made low income families wonder why the rich seem to be getting richer while they are struggling more than ever. Harriet agrees that there is a “divide which still mars our society, between people at the top and people at the bottom. “Now, class trumps gender when it comes to longevity” she argues. “It used to be that women lived longer than men, but now better off men live longer than poorer wom-

en. And class trumps ability in education, by the time a child is 6 a less able and better of child is doing better in school than a brighter, poorer child.” Her response to this challenge is to set up a cross-departmental ‘equalities panel’ which will launch in September. “I will be setting up the national equality panel, and it will be working across Government to make sure that we narrow the divide. It will deal with disability, gender and ethnicity”. It’s clear that this agenda is important to Harriet and she sees it as “a huge element and a big challenge for us.” We return to discussing engaging Party activists and as we do Harriet visibly stirs, leaning forward she says, “actually, unlike the Tories our message about equality can be seen on the ground in our excellent Black and minority ethnic candidates that we’ve got in seats, like Yasmin Quereshi in Bolton, like Rushnara Ali, like Chuka Umunna – who are fantastic people”. She explains that the Party will be trying to raise the profile of these and other candidates to engage more with young people and minority groups in the run-up to the election, “We’ll be putting them forward so that people can see they are the future.” “I think it’s very important that we allow people to see that we have some really vibrant young and black councillors in the Labour Party and that we’ve got people like David Lammy, and that we aren’t all over a certain age.” Harriet has heard about the Young Fabians Schools Project which has been engaging with citizenship students and teachers across the UK.

“

Harriet made a strong case that our most important job is to “define ourselves” and to “remind people of our proud record in Government.” Harriet suggests that “we have to look ahead and explain a vision for a more prosperous and fairer future”.

I asked what more Labour should be doing to engage young people, not just ethnic minorities, and she laughs as she says “young people should see that politics is not something you start to think about when you’re over 50”, but she admits that appearances do matter, “who we put forward publicly to engage in those discussions is vitally important.” The thing which scares all incumbent governments is voter apathy and a wholesale ‘turn-off’ from politics by the public. Harriet fires up again when we begin talking about this. She says the American Presidential elections have caught her attention for this very reason. “The Democratic candidates for President showed that politics could be different, if you have a woman and

”

a black man, basically the politics of business as usual was completely disrupted. They refreshed parts of the electorate that had traditionally not been reached by politics, and that in turn engaged a whole lot of people, particularly young people, who had not been involved in the mainstream, business as usual politics. I think it looked, sounded, and felt different.” With the mention of Obama and the end to “business as usual politics” an anxious aide popped her head round the door and silently signalled that the conversation would have to stop there. Apparently Harriet was already 3 hours late for her 10.30 am appointment, “it happens a lot” Harriet said as she reached for her mobile phone, dialled and pressed it back against her ear.

anticipations

YOUNG FABIAN POLICY COMMISSIONS

Throughout the past year, the Young Fabian Executive have run a number of policy commissions to feed into the Labour party manifesto writing process. The outcome of those policy commissions is summarised here, with an introduction from Mark Rusling

The policy commissions mirrored those established by the Labour party. A report containing the output from the Young Fabian policy commission process was recently delivered to Ed Miliband MP, who is coordinating the manifesto writing process.

“

Our members argued for an open manifesto, combining justifiable pride in Labour’s achievements with acknowledgement of where more work needs to be done

”

hroughout 2007-08, the Young Fabian policy commissions held internal meetings, discussions with the MP manifesto group chairs and two policy surgeries with Ed Miliband MP. In July 2008, we presented a paper to Ed, summarising our proposals for the next Labour manifesto. You can download a copy of this paper from www.youngfabians.org.uk. We aimed to produce concise, workable suggestions for a fourth Labour term of government. We did not want to fall into the well-worn but unhelpful path of opposing without proposing – eloquently flagging up the problems encountered by government without suggesting any solutions to those problems. After

more than 11 years in power, people rightly expect Labour to have the answers to their concerns. Our paper suggests some possible options for the Party leadership to consider. Our members argued for an open manifesto, combining justifiable pride in Labour’s achievements with acknowledgement of where more work needs to be done to achieve our aims. The manifesto must be dominated by proposals for the future. The Government cannot allow the next election to become a referendum on the three previous Labour administrations. Voters must choose between competing plans for the next five years, rather than deciding on competing narratives of the previous 13.

I would like to thank all who contributed to the submissions, including the commission chairs and, particularly, David Chaplin for arranging the MP meetings. Please contact the appropriate chair if you would like to discuss any of the proposals. The Young Fabian submissions cover all sections of manifesto policy and reflect an enduring desire to see the Labour Party in government, exercising power for the benefit of all people, particularly those born with the least advantage. The next manifesto should empower all sections of the Party to work towards that goal.

BRITAIN’S PLACE IN THE WORLD

and foreign policy ever existed, this has now certainly fallen away. As such, most of the challenges facing Britain are what Kofi Annan termed ‘problems without passports’. The EU is therefore vital to any solution to these problems, and an engaged UK is essential to an effective EU. The Conservatives’ hostility to collective European action makes their answers to Britain’s challenges weak and unworkable. The group strongly endorsed a set of guidelines on the factors that would govern future humanitarian military action. Interventions not satisfying the guidelines could not be characterised as ‘humanitarian’. To qualify, the action must be primarily motivated by a prior aggression against a people, rather than by gains to the UK; the UK must be able to commit the necessary resources to carry out the action and the gains to civilians

must be likely to outweigh losses of life or property; and the Government must state how the intervention’s success will be measured, as well as an exit strategy for when the success is achieved. In common with other commissions, this group argued for a positive and forwardlooking manifesto. It was felt that, on foreign and defence policy, there was a danger of the Government presenting an unduly negative image based around threats such as terrorism, climate change and resource scarcity. While acknowledging that these are genuine challenges, the manifesto must show that, working through international institutions and in concert with allies, they can be defeated. Labour – as the party of internationalism and multilateralism – is best-placed to respond to these threats. Mark Rusling

The commission held meetings with Eric Joyce MP on international security and Patricia Hewitt MP on Europe, as well as presenting its views in the two sessions with Ed Miliband MP. Members focussed on the real need for Labour to expose the Conservatives as being generally hostile to British membership of the EU. If a distinction between domestic

Mark Rusling Chair, Young Fabians

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

CREATING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITES

The Creating Sustainable Communities policy commission covered a broad agenda, taking in housing, the environment, transport and local government. While recognising that there have been significant achievements since 1997, there was a strong feeling that the next Labour manifesto needs to be ambitious and inspiring in these crucial areas. The environment was seen as hugely important and provided a theme that cut across a number of proposals. Many felt that the Government needs to reaffirm its commitment to stringent environmental standards across all new housing and commercial developments. There was support for a commitment to phase out non-biodegradable food packaging, while the move to phase out old-style lightbulbs was popular. A ‘lights off’ requirement for all private sector and government buildings when unoccupied was also suggested. Subsidies to make public transport more financially attractive would help cut carbon emissions and benefit the poorest members of society, who use public transport most. Reflecting the positive views of tax hypothecation expressed in many sessions, it was felt by many that revenue from an increase in aviation fuel tax could be invested in public transport. On housing, there was strong support for the Government’s excellent shared equity schemes and a feeling that they should be better publi-

cised – particularly in the context of the credit crunch. There was support for local councils to be allowed to manage housing stock if they demonstrated the ability to do so. Incentives for landlords to improve the energy efficiency of rented accommodation were suggested, and a pledge to eradicate homelessness by 2020 was also proposed. Ways of improving local government were discussed at our session with Alan Whitehead MP. Audit and assessment processes for local government should be reviewed in order to change councils’ attitude to risk: in some areas, a risk-averse culture and heavily regulated system has discouraged innovation to tackle thorny local problems. New technologies could also be more widely adopted, such as an e-petition page for each local council as introduced for 10 Downing Street. Patrick Woodman

WORK AND PROSPERITY

Members of the Work and Prosperity Commission debated a number of measures concerning employment and the family and felt that whilst Labour had many achievements to be proud of there was still much to be done to increase fairness both in the workplace and in the home. To improve the numbers of women in the workplace Labour should commit to further develop paternity pay and paternity leave, ensuring families are presented with a real choice when it comes to determining which parent takes a career break at the birth of

their child. Access to flexible working can also make a huge difference to the lives of working parents, enabling them to share the responsibility of raising their children, and its use should be further expanded and encouraged. Whilst it was agreed that tax credits have made a big difference to people’s lives, it was also felt that not enough people are receiving the support that they deserve through the tax credits system. The Commission felt that Labour should look at ways of simplifying tax credits and investigate the possibility of automatic enrolment. Labour also needs to look at how to better support those retiring from the workplace. Increasing numbers of people will need support from a relative in their retirement and in many cases this will come from working age relatives. Labour should commit to introducing a care voucher system that enables people to afford the care their elderly relatives need to enjoy dignity and independence in their retirement. Finally, the National Minimum Wage allows a 16 year old carrying out the same work as a 35 year old to be paid £2.12 less an hour. Labour should commit to raising the minimum wage for young workers or introduce a tax credit that compensates them for their lower earnings. Rebecca Rennison

CRIME, JUSTICE, CITIZENSHIP AND EQUALITIES

Members of the Work and Members of this Policy Commission felt that these areas

comprise much of the core Labour territory and could form the basis of clear policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives. In a discussion with John Mann MP on drugs and alcohol policy, members agreed that more investment was needed for treatment which tackles the multiple problems faced by drug addicts. In return for public support for this a more coercive treatment regime could be explored. There should be greater investment in youth services would help to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour among young people. Services needed to be well resourced, with funding guaranteed for more than 12 months. In a discussion with Chris Bryant MP on constitutional reform, members felt that any future written constitution must have at its heart the objective of improving access to justice and human rights, and that it must be made relevant to people’s ordinary lives if it is to be politically salient at the next election. Members felt that the continued attacks on the Human Rights Act meant that there should be an attempt to recommunicate the aims of the HRA as something that protects citizens from government and isn’t just something that applies to criminals. Low voter turnout - particularly among young people - is a concern to Young Fabian members. Voting reform for the House of Commons (for example to a Single Transferable Vote system) was supported, along with the completed of House of Lords reform. Members felt that Labour should undertake decisive action to close the gender pay gap as part of a wider policy to improve gender equality. Labour should reclaim the idea of the family (in whatever form people wish to live) by actively promoting flexibility at work (as opposed to merely tolerating it), giving fathers more paternity leave paid at a higher level and providing additional support for carers. Kate Groucutt

anticipations

EDUCATION & SKILLS

“Ask me my three main priorities for government, and I tell you: education, education,

“

The members of the commission put forward ideas about how Labour can facilitate greater public involvement and trust in the NHS, through greater transparency, accountability and by empowering organisations which give people a stronger voice in their health services

”

education.” Tony Blair, Speech to party conference, October 1996. 12 years after Tony Blair pledged to make education a key priority of his administration, Labour can be proud of some of its achievements in education. Encouraging record numbers of students into higher education, doubling of funding per school pupil and providing free nursery places for three and four year olds are just some examples of real progress. But education inequalities still exist, and dissatisfaction is rife amongst parents keen to see their child obtain the best possible education.

The fact that this year alone 100,000 parents did not obtain their first choice of school for their children indicates the work still to be done. With this in mind, the education and skills policy commission held a meeting with Hilary Armstrong MP on the challenges ahead for Labour in the education sector. The commission felt that bold policies were needed for Labour to regain the initiative from the Conservatives, currently leading Labour by 11 percentage points when certain voters are asked which party has the best education policies. The group discussed a wide range of education policy ar-

eas, from lifelong learning to selection, testing and post 16 education. The commission looked at radical reforms to ensure pupils get the skills they need for the workplace, such as allowing students to participate in internships in year 13, and discussed opening up schools for lifelong learning in the evenings and during school closures, creating policies which can help Labour regain its rightful place as the only party that can be trusted to invest sufficient time and money to deliver key public services that are fit for purpose.

HEALTH

perspectives to feed into Labour’s policy manifesto. Members of the group also took part in the two events with Ed Miliband MP, presenting ideas for Labour’s future health policy. The Health Policy Group also conducted a virtual policy forum, allowing members from around the country to feed in ideas for a final health policy paper to be presented to Ed Miliband as part of a Young Fabian policy paper covering the six topics of Labour’s policy commissions. The final health paper argued for forward looking manifesto which focussed on Labour’s core values and empowered people to live more healthy lives. The members of the commission put forward ideas about how Labour can facilitate greater public involvement and trust in the NHS, through greater trans-

parency, accountability and by empowering organisations which give people a stronger voice in their health services. The paper went on to describe ways that health inequalities should be tackled and the most vulnerable people in society can be supported and protected, arguing for prioritisation of vulnerable groups and minimum entitlements for social care services and other services that affect people’s health and wellbeing. The group submitted that a joint approach to health policy and aspects of life that affect health outcomes, such as poverty, education and housing, needs to be developed if health inequalities are to be tackled. This was a particular theme that was echoed by Young Fabians across the policy commissions. Emma Carr

The Health Policy Group took part in a joint policy commission event on Drugs and Alcohol Policy with the Crime and Justice Policy Group. John Mann MP, joined us to lead the discussion and Young Fabian members from the two policy groups fed in ideas and thoughts. The joint event produced a range of ideas from the two different

Tom Flynn

The entire Young Fabian Policy Commission report submitted to Ed Miliband is available to download at www.youngfabians.org.uk

anticipations

ONLINE FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

HIGH FIVE

Gordon Brown could revive Labour’s fotunes by changing the party’s strategy in five ways, argues Chris Leslie

hen it comes to how Gordon Brown could revive Labour’s fortunes, there is no shortage of advice. Winning a fourth term for any political party would be a mean feat, never mind when faced with such tough economic circumstances internationally. Yet there is a discernable route map that Labour could follow, going beyond the obvious steady competence in delivering quality public services that the public now expect as standard. There are measures which the Prime Minister could institute to regain that most elusive characteristic in politics: momentum. Capturing the public’s imagination and making the political weather is an essential prerequisite. If Labour can set the agenda with bold policy, there is a fair chance that an open-minded conversation with the public can be re-established. There are five core elements in this strategy and they each require a measure of change in tactics. First and foremost, Labour needs a suite of policies which match up to the resonating value of fairness, the key distinctive offer that Labour brings to British politics. Labour’s belief in upholding fairness and fair play needs to be amplified above the daily hum of administrative government. Labour is best when it champions the cause of fair play and the public need to hear more from the Government on this theme. This means offering help to the vast majority of ordinary working people, so that everyone feels that the Government appreciates their efforts and difficulties. Helping relieve council tax pressures, the costs of energy this winter, ensuring available mortgage

finance and other measures should combine to prove that Labour understands our everyday needs and concerns and stands on the side of the many, and not the privileged few. Policies advocating fairness, however, also require a second step. Next, Labour needs to recognise that fairness requires more than being nice to everyone; it also means being firm enough to name and shame those who break the rules or who are acting unfairly. Fairness is defined by the exposure of irresponsibility, selfishness and greed – and it is Labour’s job to throw the spotlight on where things are wrong and take steps to make them right, whether exposing sharp practice in the banking sector, exploitative energy pricing or harmful city hedging speculation. Some may see this as a non-consensual approach. In fact, the instincts of the media and the public are closely attuned to those whose behaviour is out of order, and Labour needs to act in harmony with the public mood. Third, Labour Ministers need to fight hard against the assimilating tendencies of Whitehall bureaucracy and break out of ‘establishment’ mode. Labour has been in Government now for over a decade and its credentials are well-proven. Ministers now need to get into a mindset where they are championing truly popular causes, on the side of the general public and fighting against vested interests and the establishment view that prevents change, not appearing as officialdom defensively justifying the status quo. Fourth, it is time for policy to be decluttered and stripped of opaque complexity and unnecessary caveats. Simple, clear and accessible answers

to the problems faced by the mainstream majority are needed. The media need to know straight away about bold ideas and the impact that they offer. And the public need expect the party to advocate policies which say what they do on the tin, seeing what Labour has to offer at-a-glance. Progressive universalism has quite rightly meant the targeting of resources according to detailed needs assessment, but it is now important to remember the ‘universalism’ aspect of this philosophy too; a little bit of something for everyone also matters. Lastly, Labour has got to regain its core confidence in a balanced approach to the role of the market and working with the private sector. The latter Blair years left some with the false impression that Labour believed all answers rest in the private sector. Listening to some on the far left today you would think that everything private was inherently evil. Labour has to steer a clear course through the centre of these poles, recognising that sometimes the private sector can bear fruit for the public good, but also that sometimes there are limits to the role of the market. The public yearn for this pragmatic and sensible approach. Gordon Brown’s 2003 speech to the Social Market Foundation defined perfectly how this balance should be struck and this should be essential reading for all Ministers today. These are undoubtedly tough times politically but more importantly, tough in reality for many households across the UK – this is when Labour policies are needed more than ever. These five steps offer a chance for Labour to rebuild its relationship with the public.

Chris Leslie is Director of the New Local Government Network He was formerly MP for Shipley and co-ordinated Gordon Brown’s Labour leadership campaign in 2007.

“

There is a discernable route map that Labour could follow, going beyond the obvious steady competence in delivering quality public services that the public now expect as standard

”

Spring 2008

anticipations

INVOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY

Labour should confront the Conservative’s assertion that the voluntary sector, not the state, should provide public services, writes Tom Ebbutt

T Tom Ebbutt is a member of the Young Fabians

“

Allowing Cameron to codedly suggest that the best way forward for Britain is the retreat of the state from the social arena is dangerous

”

he UK’s third sector – made up of voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, charities, cooperatives and mutuals – is a daily fixture in all of our lives. For those of us who are lucky, we notice it less. For those of us who aren’t, the sector may be at the heart of our life. In a speech to the National Council of Voluntary organisations in June this year David Cameron launched the Conservative’s new green paper on the third sector. In the accompanying speech he set out what he described as an agenda of ‘radical conservative reform’ of British society and labelled charities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations as the ‘engines of future social progress.’ Somewhere in the depths of an awful lot of carefully vague words there were – perhaps accidentally – some policy proposals. The green paper stated that volunteering should be increased and charitable giving encouraged. The speech declared that third sector organisations should ‘take on delivery of significantly more services currently delivered by the state’. The first and second of Cameron’s suggestions are, like motherhood and apple pie, things that are generally agreed to be ‘a good thing’. In addition, they have already both been not only proposed but also delivered by this Labour government – a £100m investment to expand volunteering is presently working to build opportunities and capacity in the sector, and the expansion of gift aid in the 2000 budget boosted donations to UK charities by £828m in the last year alone. As this shows, this is an area in which this government has a strong track record and a clear position; it is one which

it should use to its advantage. And Cameron’s third proposal – a revolution in the role of the third sector in the delivery of public services - is one that gives it an opportunity to do so. The way Labour should address this challenge is threefold. Firstly, iron out the creases in the essentially sound existing system for dealing with the third sector: reduce the administrative burden on organisations involved; make targets smart and review them where there are too many or where they distort incentives; build long term relationships with those who want to partner closely with government and allow those who want to retain a greater degree of independence in advocacy to ally with the government for delivery where beliefs overlap. In doing this ensure the shades of grey in the existing Compact between the government and voluntary and community groups are removed. State clearly what is obvious: if you, as a organisation in the third sector, are to deliver a specific public service this necessarily means that you renounce a degree on independence in that area – if a government is to be held accountable for what it spends taxpayers money on, it must retain at least a degree of control over what that money is spent on, and how. Secondly, address the reason why the delivery of public services by charities appears alluring to many: the immediate accountability a small, locally run organisation provides. Devolve the power to direct delivery to the lowest practical level. We should use and trust our local councils, the existing system of local government. They should be further empowered to direct service delivery. Mechanisms

for scrutinising this delivery and exposing its failings should be strengthened – focusing on scrutiny from below, rather than from above. Thirdly, expose what Cameron is really gesturing at: that the role of the public sector should be diminished and replaced with a greater role for ‘society’, which Cameron defined, in neo-Thaterite terms, as distinct from the ‘the state’. Here Labour should make the case for what is obvious the state is the best agent of social change in this or any country; in the UK it has decreased child poverty by 600,000 since 1997 and brought hospital waiting lists down to their lowest levels since records began. This would never have been achieved by the uncoordinated work of a myriad of organisations with no obligation to pull together – collective, coordinated action is required to solve big problems. The third sector is a crucial part of British society, it is essential in supporting the vulnerable and pressing for social change, but it in itself – as most in the sector would agree – cannot deliver that change. That does not mean we should make out that the state is perfect, or that there is no role for the third sector in delivering improvements to peoples’ lives. The potential for large public sector organisations to be bureaucratic and lumbering is something everyone has an example of. But such an experience does not mean that the approach is broken, just a realisation of it. Allowing Cameron to codedly suggest that the best way forward for Britain is the retreat of the state from the social arena is dangerous; he must be confronted, and this is an argument that can easily be won.

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Environmental justice and social justice are inseparable, argues John Hitchin

he new Empowerment White Paper was a difficult one. The problem was not really in the scattered quotes from Paine and Mill (and Douglas Adams), which seemed to highlight the shortcomings of the proposals and the poverty of their ambition rather than the lofty nature of them, nor was it the slightly woolly nature of some of the proposals (it is almost impossible to talk about empowerment in words that don’t sound woolly or patronising). The difficulty I had when reading it was that, as much as I liked the spirit behind it, I couldn’t help but wonder where it would take us. Empowerment sounds like something all progressives should support: build social capital, devolve power to town halls and then on to the communities they serve, find new ways to engage people in the choices that affect them and their lives. As I read, however, I kept thinking of the new ecotowns that are being worked towards. When these were proposed, there was broad support for them from the kind of people who read housing green papers. The problems came when people had to consider whether they wanted one next door to them. Opposition to eco-towns is great in many places, and plans have already been amended and changed. But the people who opposed these plans, and have seen them changed, have been empowered by that. The problem government (at whatever level) often forgets is that empowerment can be achieved far easier by people getting together to oppose what that government is suggesting than it can by people building ideas and solutions from the

ground up. The sword has two edges, and the back one is often sharper. Another relatively recent, and challenging, proposal was that made by the new housing minister on her first day as she addressed a Fabian audience. Caroline Flint, straight from DWP, suggested that we should consider linking people’s social housing to their ability to find a job. The government’s admirable desire to reach 80% employment is again something that few progressives can argue against. The need to find work for, and empower, those people who often live in social housing and have not had a job for as long as they can remember, is essential. But should somebody’s home be linked to their employment status? Is that who we want to be? Are those really our values? You’re getting quite a way into this article and are probably wondering what this has to do with the Labour Environment Campaign, or our values. Well, the whole point of SERA is that you can’t have social justice without environmental justice; one doesn’t work without the other. They might sometimes seem to in the short term (proliferation of affordable flights that allowed people who had never travelled abroad to do so), but in the long term, things break down (rising global temperatures due to carbon emissions that adversely and directly affect the poorest and most in need populations of the planet first). I have tried to highlight with a couple of recent examples how our best intentions, in the environmental field or elsewhere, can often seem conflicted. The eco-town question, however, remains: is it pos-

sible to empower people to make decisions about their own communities, but also implement controversial, yet environmentally motivated, planning decisions? I believe that the answer is yes. It’s just harder than anybody dares admit. It takes care, respect and time. Communities and societies, at their best, are built around shared hopes, aspirations and fears. As a socialist I believe that it is the role of governments to listen to these, to empower people to have their say and to build a narrative around them. Well, what are our hopes, aspirations and fears? We hope for a future that is secure for us and our friends and our children to build homes and communities and to have fulfilling jobs; we aspire towards a world where people can influence the day to day decisions that affect them; and we are scared of the uncertainties and potential disasters that climate change is going to bring. The government needs an empowerment bill, it needs a climate change bill, it needs a local government bill, and a housing and communities bill. It needs all of these, but most importantly it needs an interplay, an understanding and a story that connects them all. That would allow people to understand why eco-towns are linked to their ability to start a parish council, and why your job does matter to your home, to your community and to your environment. We need to remember why our values of environmental and social justice are inseparable and why they matter. Only through sticking to them, will it be possible to make the jump from hopes and aspirations, to realities in people’s lives.

John Hitchin is Youth Officer for SERA - Labour Environment Campaign. For more information on Young SERA, visit www.sera. org.uk.

“

We need to remember why our values of environmental and social justice are inseparable and why they matter.

”

anticipations

PAYING OFF

Labour needs to be less timid in promoting the national minimum wage, and in raising it, suggests Tom Marley

W Tom Marley is a member of the Young Fabians

“

Labour should not be afraid to champion the NMW. We should always remind the electorate the Conservative Party actively opposed these measures

”

hen asked what has been Labour’s greatest achievement since 1997 a popular choice is often the National Minimum wage. This much loved policy was implemented ten years ago though the fact that it is often recalled stands as testament to its success. The values that underpin a minimum wage are implicitly shared with any social democratic party. Fundamentally a minimum wage ensures greater social justice. This is best encapsulated in the slogan, “a fair pay for a day’s work.” The reality of the low-pay culture under the last Conservative government should offend our notions of justice. When the NMW was introduced some were earning as little as £1.20 an hour. (£1.38 in today’s prices) People on the minimum wage can expect £5.73 an hour from October. A minimum wage is a guaranteed way to ensure that work really does pay. To date the NMW is one of the best examples of this Labour government putting its principles into practice. This is because the minimum wage achieved two-fold aims. It helped those on lowest incomes in a bold attempt to provide better earnings to the worst off in society. Yet at the same time it chimed with the almost ‘English’ notion of fairplay and decency. Labour should not be afraid to champion the NMW. We should always remind the electorate the Conservative Party actively opposed these measures. The Low Pay Commission has done further research into the impact of the NMW. It was found that any increase in the NMW will have a knock on effect on the pay grades immediately above it. Many pay grades set in relation to the minimum wage, so when the

NWM rises so too do those pay grades. Many firms also keep their lowest pay grade above the minimum wage to remain competitive. Labour is keen to build on this success. At the recent National Policy Forum it was agreed the standard NMW rate should apply to those who are 21 years old. Currently those in the 18-21 wage bracket are on a ‘development’ rate. This currently stands at £4.60. For Labour to put its principles truly into practice it should eradicate this age discrimination. All, regardless of age, are experiencing the current rise in food and fuel prices. Petrol pumps do not discriminate in favour of the young. Alternatively, consider that those who are 18-21 do not expect to pay a lower rate of rent on their accommodation. As a result, that they are paid less often for the same job is unjust. This also sits uncomfortably with the fact that Labour is proposing to widen the franchise to all those who 16 and 17 years old. The next manifesto should pledge to end this inequality and protect all workers equally. The government also recently took action to protect workers in sectors where tipping is common. Many employers counted these tips towards payment of the NMW. Under the old system the more a worker got tipped the less an employer would pay towards the basic NMW rate. The government announced its plans to outlaw the practice, ensuring workers keep their tips while employers still pay the full NMW. Labour should be even bolder and consider the introduction of a living wage. Although the NMW does protect workers from exploitative wage rates it sometimes fails to give people an income which they can live off. Regional variations exist in the cost of living.

Currently in London 400,000 people fall into a working poverty trap. To ignore this would undermine the child poverty targets the government has set. In recognising these facts the next Labour manifesto should propose a living wage – this is a basic level of income to secure an adequate standard of living. The inevitable counter argument from the CBI would be this is another punishing blow to our international competitiveness. It may also be argues that tax credits combined with a minimum wage provide enough of a safety net. However, the argument should be made a living wage firmly puts the responsibility to provide an adequate income on business and not on the government. Business should not be allowed to fall short on its responsibilities to its employees. Instead the argument ought be made that a living wage is good for productivity. In 2007 Barclays introduced a living wage of £7.50 an hour for its cleaning staff in the City of London. As a result staff turnover dropped from 30% to 14%. KPMG implemented a similar living wage for low paid staff and found absenteeism dropped dramatically. Fundamentally this policy should reinforce the coalition that saw Labour elected in 1997. A living wage policy does not only seek to help those who instinctively vote Labour but reassures much of middle England that Labour’s policies are based upon values of fairness and justice. This marriage of our principles and practice have delivered results this government should rightly be proud. However Labour should not be timid in championing and strengthening the NMW where necessary. Only then will it be fair play for fair pay.

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

ASPIRATION NATION

Only the Labour party is equipped to create a truly classless society, argues David Boot

fter reaching the top of the greasy pole in 1990, John Major heralded the ‘classless society’ as his new government’s big idea. It strove to remove the barriers to self advancement, but, like the administration as a whole, it failed. Why? Because such an approach was anathema to the Conservatives, whose very ideology is based on protecting the social status quo. Only the Labour Party can claim to be the party of aspiration, through its commitment to improving the life chances of all, regardless of background. Looking ahead, this mantra must form part of Labour’s narrative going into the next election as the party seeks to reform the progressive consensus. In his closing speech to the 2007 Conservative Party Conference, David Cameron told the country that his party was the party of aspiration, despite proposing a cut in inheritance tax (a charge levied on the richest six per cent of estates in the country), covert support for school selection and opposition to the New Deal. The fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Michael Young’s satire ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’ and musings about how Labour will win the next general election, securing the support of the affluent and aspirant south east, also helps put aspiration on the political agenda. As the engine for social mobility, a core prerequisite for aspiration, education has received massive increases in funding since 1997. Spending per pupil has more than doubled from £2,650 to £5,750 a year since New Labour came to power. Despite this, social mobility has stalled (although the GCSE results of the poorest groups are now improving faster than

more affluent pupils, a sign that upward mobility, measured across generations, may improve in future decades). Plans to extend the compulsory education age from 16 to 18, encompassing training as well as academic options for learning, will help to provide a greater range of skills, fuelling aspirations of young people. More effective careers advice and an extension of the Modern Apprenticeship system, covering a wider range of careers in both the public and private sectors, will also help to develop an aspirant society still further. This will be crucial, as the number of unskilled jobs in the UK economy declines. A shift in funding to give support to adults to study for a first degree is a further crucial step to build an aspirant society. The co-funding of courses, which includes funding from employers and from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), will also help to meet the target to make 40 per cent of the working population degree-holders by 2020, as Lord Leitch’s review into skills suggests is needed (for 2005 the proportion of degree holders in the economy was 29 per cent). Aspiration also has to be fostered prior to young people reaching Key Stage 4 (GCSE level), as early careers advice, a softening of gender stereotypes relating to careers and the nurturing of talent help to broaden horizons. On the latter point, it is crucial that the Gifted and Talented (G&T) programme in schools, used to support and develop the most talented pupils, is not inconsistently rolled out across the country. At present, it is not uncommon for pupils to be placed in all top sets for subjects merely because they are identified as gifted in a particular area, meaning that a student iden-

tified for their maths prowess could be placed in a high set for English purely because of this talent. Although flexibility in the system (allowing individual schools and teachers to identify gifted and talented pupils) must be retained, greater guidance on how schemes should support pupils needs to be set out. Moves to a bursary system for the poorest G&T pupils in London, the Black Country and Greater Manchester this September, allowing those in year ten to receive £400 a year to spend on relevant external activities and opportunities through the Young, Gifted and Talented Learner Academy (YGTLA), is a further welcome move to improve the scope of the system. Greater investment in the G&T programme and personalised learning (which together received £1bn in funding for 2007-8) helps promote the aspirations of young people and should be developed further, together with a rolled out version of the bursary scheme which benefits every community. In a speech to education professionals in June this year, Minister for Children, Young People and Families Beverley Hughes spoke of the Government’s ‘aspiration agenda’, to be delivered through the ten year Children’s Plan. It is clear that aspiration should form a key tranche of Labour’s vision at the next election, bringing a unifying and positive political message to the electorate. In a speech to the National Academies Conference, fellow Minister Lord Adonis remarked that ‘nothing in my view holds Britain back more than its class system and its class barriers’. It’s clear that only Labour can create a truly classless society, through opportunities and aspirations for all.

David Boot is a member of the Young Fabians. He is Labour’s prospective Parliamentary candidate for Mid Sussex.

“

Only the Labour Party can claim to be the party of aspiration, through its commitment to improving the life chances of all, regardless of background

”

anticipations

UNITE TO WIN

Rachel Reeves argues that we should focus on what unites us in order to help Labour achieve victory at the next election

T Rachel Reeves is Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate for Leeds West. She was Secretary of the Young Fabians in 2001/2.

“

To win the next election Labour must cultivate the coalition it successfully built to win in 1997, 2001 and 2005. An important part of this coalition is the younger generation

”

he party conference season looms. Among Labour Party activists there is a sense of apprehension about what Manchester will bring. A return to the early summer briefings and despondency? Or a chance to re-group, be proud of our achievements and to begin preparations for the next general election? We must ensure it is the latter. In Manchester and across the country we need to rediscover our confidence and remind ourselves of what the Tories will do if returned to power. In 1996, it was a mixture of anger and promise that motivated me to join the Labour Party. Anger that my secondary school 6th form consisted of two pre-fab huts in the playground. Anger that thousands of young people were being written off before they even had a chance of a job or apprenticeship. And anger that many older people were ending their lives on hospital trolleys or freezing to death unable to pay their heating bills. The promise was of full employment and a focus on education to enable everyone to realise their potential. In 1997 radical, Labour policies began to right the injustices. We have not always gone far enough and we have not always got everything right. We must be humble but we must not lose sight of how far we have come either – a national minimum wage – increased year on year, 500,000 young people back to work and every school rebuilt or refurbished. In Leeds West, the constituency I hope to represent after the next election, unemployment is at a record low, BSF money has transformed schools and the new, more vocational, curriculum will

make a huge difference to educational attainment and engagement. But there is no room to stand still. Still too many young people leave school without qualifications and the number of young people not in education, employment or training (the NEETs) is alarmingly high. Those who think a period in opposition will be a good opportunity to re-group ignore the damage that a Tory government would do to the people we are here to support. Only Labour is addressing these challenges – most recently with an expansion of modern apprenticeships and diplomas. Despite opposing us at every step of the way, the Tories now say they will not reverse what Labour has done. They say that they agree with us on the minimum wage; they won’t close Children’s Centres; and they won’t stop the Building Schools for the Future Programme. But where in Cameron’s Tory party is the dynamism, the vision, like we had in 1997? What do they want to achieve? Would they take these flagship policies to the next level, as Labour will, or will they let them wither on the vine? I expect the latter, and getting this across is our opportunity ahead of the next general election. The anger and hope that drove me in 1996 to join the Labour Party should still fuel us today. The Tories won’t invest in the new vocational curriculum; the Tories won’t match our commitment to eradicate child poverty; and the Tories won’t increase the minimum wage. We should all share a frustration that there are still children growing up in poverty and that the number of pen-

sioners in poverty is increasing again. But while we all want to go further, faster, we should be optimistic that it is Labour who have the ideas and values to address our future challenges. Whether on climate change, care for the elderly, immigration or investing in science and technology it is Labour values and Labour ideas that are setting the agenda. The Tories promise all things to all people – but to simultaneously promise tax cuts, reductions in borrowing and £11bn worth of additional spending is inconsistent. As well as having a vision of where you want to go, government is about tough decisions. That is not something that the Tories are yet willing to embrace, but leaves them vulnerable to attacks about credibility. To win the next election Labour must cultivate the coalition it successfully built to win in 1997, 2001 and 2005. An important part of this coalition is the younger generation – a group with few memories of Thatcher or Major’s Britain. Anyone under the age of 25 will only have hazy recollections of a Conservative government. They will not remember Black Wednesday, will not necessarily link Labour to the new school buildings or to the increased capacity of our universities. The Young Fabians can help politicise the next generation and help bring to life Labour’s achievements. As a think tank the YFs also have an important role in contributing to the next manifesto to help ensure that Labour policies speak to the ambitions and hopes of young people. Let’s use our values and our vision for a fairer Britain to unite us in Manchester and to show the Tories that the nest election is still very much up for grabs.

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

WERE YOU UP FOR TWIGGY?

Dan Whittle reflects on how things might work out at the next general election

May 2010 Dear Diary,

Woke up still wearing my suit and rosette, feet aching, with the Party’s election theme “Things continue to get better” going round in my head. Trudged the streets of Swindon last night, then went home and stayed up until the last results were declared including Stephen Twigg’s win in West Derby – just as emotional as in 1997 because just as then, there were some points in the campaign when we thought it wouldn’t happen. It is unbelievable that from poll ratings the lowest the party had ever seen two years ago – we have come back to win the election. The turning point, of course, was the 2008 conference and the organisational and policy changes made following it. Emphasizing grass-roots campaigning, then rewarding our core supporters with policies that appealed to them, then creating a new ‘big tent’ and finally taking back territory wrongfully stolen by the Tories. Organisationally there was a shift towards the grass-roots training and campaigning, at first by necessity (no money) then when it was shown to work, it took off. The party learnt from the successful Obama campaign back in 2008. This is a man who won his political spurs as a community organiser and activist, a man who insisted that every campaign be run by local people, respecting local knowledge, trusting local networks, and not imposing them from above. We looked, we recognised, and we learnt. Thousands of pounds that might have gone on billboards were handed instead straight to local Labour Parties. CLPs were helped and encouraged to own their own campaigns, even to look outside the traditional labour Party structure to form

local activist alliances. Peer to peer training was encouraged. Networks expanded, activist numbers increased, our support grew – we were inspiring people again. Closer contact with our old friends, the unions and affiliates in 2008 actually helped give a stronger policy offer which we could sell to our most loyal supporters. The CWU gave us “Broadband Britain.” The Co-op party gave us community energy co-operatives and “The Peoples Games” (capturing some of the sparkle of the golds brought back from China by team GB) and USDAW helped us with a plan to restore the work/life balance to our workplaces. We asked the unions to be the new distributers of unemployment benefits as they are in more progressive European countries, putting them at the centre of society again and making them a larger part of our coalition for full employment. Only with a simple and strong agenda to accompany a fresh approach to campaigning could we hope to break through. The popular windfall tax on utilities promoted by Compass helped to reverse the damage done to trust by the 10p tax: big business doing their bit to help the poorest through hard times. Those who had in part caused those tears, through reckless and grossly irresponsible behaviour in the City, were given a new regulatory framework, including a credit Bill of Rights to curtail the high interest credit card and loan business. We had a sound basis for rebuilding support. Things could only get better. Once our base was set it was time to build a new coalition. The Lib Dems had finally accepted the Tories had eaten enough into their vote that they would lose their seats in the South. Their time as a parliamentary force was over unless they worked with us, or with ‘them’. In the

late 1990’s Prescott and other traditionalists had every right to snub ideas of a joint venture, there was no need for it. However, by 2009 times had changed. As part of the deal politically draining policies like ID cards were jettisoned and a package of new policies were adopted. Electoral reform was pushed though and British democracy was made better as a result. Fighting for a fully elected House of Lords enabled our party to re-establish ourselves as a radical, progressive party – able and willing to take on unearned privilege, and win. Many of the local councillors who had lost their seats pre2008 made excellent candidates for the new upper house. It was then time to put in place a package of dynamic, eye catching, values – based, and achievable policies. I was proud to knock on doors fighting for apprenticeships for all those who needed them, a National Civic Service and free childcare places for all children under the age of five, a national homelessness strategy, and many more. And what’s more – people responded. The 3 million houses to be built were assigned where possible in advance to those on waiting lists, off plan. The targets on child and pensioner poverty were brought forward, making them more urgent. The promises on minimum wage and pension increases were improved, forcing the Tories to withdraw their promise to meet them. We were bold, we were back, and, once again, we were best. The government’s agenda went through a time of redefinition and repackaging ahead of yesterday’s election. We opened our arms and welcomed people into our broad church; we knocked on doors and we worked bloody hard. Suddenly there was a choice again, and yesterday it paid off – we lost 50 seats not the 150 we had feared. Not bad thirteen years in! Lots done, lots more to do.

Dan Whittle is International and Embassies Officer of the Young Fabians

“

It is unbelievable that from poll ratings the lowest the party had ever seen two years ago – we have come back to win the election. The turning point, of course, was the 2008 conference

”

anticipations

THE STATE WE’RE IN

Labour must be clear about the roles and responsibilities of the state, in stark contrast to the confused notion espoused by the Conservatives, writes James Green

“I James Green is Schools Project Officer of the Young Fabians

“

Labour must deconstruct the Cameron message and make the case afresh that an active state has a crucial role to play in bringing about social change.

”

t is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.” These words from The Art of War are so well known that they are almost cliché. And yet they reflect an important truth. From battle fields to football fields, from boardrooms to court rooms, Sun Tzu’s words are as salient today as they were when they were first written all those centuries ago. They have something important to say about the challenges that Labour currently faces. For the party to win the next General Election it must find a new confidence in its radical and progressive vision for a fairer Britain. Labour must deconstruct the Cameron message and make the case afresh that an active state has a crucial role to play in bringing about social change. So who are Cameron’s Conservatives? What do they really stand for? And what do they tell us about Labour and the government of the last ten years? Cameron on Cameron is a collection of interviews with the Tory leader conducted by GQ editor Dylan Jones. The book charts Cameron’s political ascendancy over the past year and although policy-light, it is revealing. It covers everything from Cameron’s upbringing, to his views on Thatcher; from his penchant for AC/DC, to his take on the election that never was. But between the interesting tit-bits and the odd insightful comment, there is a tension throughout the book between Cameron’s radical goals and the limitations that come from his political ideology. This tension is perhaps best exemplified by Cameron’s big idea – ‘social responsibility.’ The Tory leader argues that Britain needs to enter a “post-

bureaucratic age” in which people need to stop looking to the state alone for solutions to their problems and instead take responsibility for their own communities. Cameron argues that this is the only way that we can ever hope to mend “the broken society” in which we now live. Cameron talks radical. He calls for a “revolution in responsibility”. He even boldly claims that he’s “going to be as radical a social reformer as Mrs Thatcher was an economic reformer.” But beneath the grand ideals and bold claims lurks a political philosophy that, by its very nature, results in government inaction. It’s all well and good declaring society to be broken, but unless you’re part of the solution, you’re just part of the problem. In Cameron’s parallel political universe the state diagnoses social problems but absolves itself of the responsibility of dealing with them. You can see it now; Tory MPs travelling the country, pointing out bits of broken Britain and then turning to the nearest local to knowingly saying, “You missed a spot.” That’s not radicalism, that’s conservatism - a small state forced to moralise because it is unable to act. This is the core contradiction that lies at the heart of ‘social responsibility.’ Cameron’s willingness to talk about progressive issues makes him a different beast from the unreconstructed Tories of the past. But the ideology that guides him inevitably falls short. Put simply, the state has a crucial role to play in building a better and fairer society. And however much Cameron tries to triangulate around this issue, it can’t be avoided. His efforts lead him not to a radical new vision for Britain,

but to an old Conservative one in which a small state acts as guardian of a narrowly defined public morality – paternalistic and judgemental. This moralising dimension to ‘social responsibility’ was given full voice in the run up to the Glasgow East by-election. Marketing the contest as the “broken society by-election”, Cameron spoke out against what he deemed to be the “moral neutrality” that had defined the past ten years of Labour. For him Britain had become “a society… in danger of losing its sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and, yes, even public morality.” Cameron’s speech reads like a collection of Daily Mail headlines, slickly stitched together and toned down to get them through the censors. The speech blamed fat people for eating too much, alcoholics for being drunk and the poor for being, well, poor. And Cameron’s bold conclusion? It turns out that there is in fact such a thing as “right and wrong, good and bad.” The Tory leader’s Glasgow speech is so full of blindingly obvious statements that it could make your head spin. Of course there is such a thing as right and wrong. Of course “social problems are often the consequence of the choices that people make.” Of course families are important. But beneath all the dross hangs the traditional Tory view that the state is there not to deal with social problems but to judge them. So we’re forced to ask – without an active state how can we hope to mend our ‘broken society’? Cameron’s answer; “You can give a nudge.” Nudge has become the Cameroons’ book of choice. Written by two American academics, Richard Thaler and Cass

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

Sunstein, it makes the case for ‘Libertarian Paternalism.’ At the heart of their theory is the idea that every choice we make is shaped by how it is offered to us. The way choices are structured, by fault or by design, is referred to as ‘choice architecture.’ From the food we eat, to the amount of money we save each month, choice architecture has a powerful influence over the decisions we make. Thaler and Sunstein argue that by better understanding the irrational way that human beings actually behave, choices can be structured to influence people’s behavior for the better. In this way it is possible to be both Libertarian, holding onto the fundamental belief that people should be free to choose, and paternalistic, believing that it is legitimate to influence or ‘nudge’ people into making better choices. According to Thaler and Sunstein a small ‘nudge’ can have a huge impact on people’s behavior.

While fascinating, such amusing anecdotes form only a small part of a book that has something to say about a whole range of social issues. From increasing organ donations to reducing road traffic accidents, from improving the personal savings rate to tackling climate change, Nudge is crammed with fascinating illustrations and valuable insights. There is an obvious reason why this theory would be attractive to a Conservative like Cameron. It offers a method to tackle social issues without the need for Labour’s big state. In the Guardian, George Osborne outlined the official Conservative view, “Nudge [will help the Conservatives] develop policies that will work in a post-bureaucratic age where Labour’s clunking tax and regulation measures have all too often failed.” And to the surprise of some, he went onto outline a number of Nudge inspired Conservative policies. Responding to the fact that

This is wonderfully illustrated in the book by an example that comes from, of all places, the men’s toilets in Amsterdam’s Shiphol Airport. Thinking that accuracy would improve if men were given a target to aim at, the airport staff etched the image of a black housefly into each urinal. The staff turned out to be right – spillage was reduced by 80 percent.

people are heavily influenced by the behavior of those around them, the Conservatives would require household energy bills to contain information about the energy efficiency of neighboring homes. A pilot scheme run in California showed this to have had a marked beneficial impact on household energy consumption. Learning from another suc-

“

Labour’s task in the coming months and years will be to articulate that choice in a way that resonates. In a way that makes people realise what they could lose if the Tories come to power. But most of all, in a way that inspires them to believe that only Labour has the progressive values and the radical vision to build a better and fairer Britain.

cessful scheme in the United States the Conservatives would scrap fines for council’s with poor recycling rates and would instead offer households £20 when they recycle. Finally, to “‘nudge’ people to act more responsibly” and help tackle personal debt, the Conservatives would introduce a cooling off period of seven days between signing up for a new store card and being able to use it. Again the Tories talk radical. Osbourne boldly claims that, “Our work with the world’s leading behavioral economists and social psychologists is yet more proof that the Conservative Party is now the party of ideas in British politics.” But incentivising recycling and providing more information on energy bills, however useful, will never be enough to tackle the pressing threat of climate change. Providing a cooling off period for new store cards won’t herald a “revolution in responsibility”, or stop the concerning rise in personal debt. In the end, when you scratch beneath the surface, Cameron’s flirtation with behavioral economics offers little more than a slick modern gloss to the traditional Tory view that the state must be small and that change must be slow and gradual. Yet again what we’re left with is

”

far from radical. Despite the facade of modernisation, Cameron harbours the same traditional Conservative values as his predecessors. To win the next election Labour must reveal Cameron for what he is. Labour must demonstrate that the Conservatives are still on the wrong side of a fundamental, ideological divide. Between an empowering state and a small state; between a tolerant government and a moralising one, between radicalism and conservatism. It’s a message that the public want to hear. Up and down the country, on the doorstep people are saying the same thing - that there is no difference between the political parties and that their vote doesn’t matter. But there is a real choice in British politics today. Labour’s task in the coming months and years will be to articulate that choice in a way that resonates. In a way that makes people realise what they could lose if the Tories come to power. But most of all, in a way that inspires them to believe that only Labour has the progressive values and the radical vision to build a better and fairer Britain. As Sun Tzu would say, it’s time for Labour to know itself.

anticipations

VALUE JUDGEMENT

Ashley Walsh argues that unity of purpose and values will allow Labour to defeat the Conservatives at the next election

F Ashley Walsh is a member of the Young Fabians

“

The fatalism that is beginning to erode at Labour’s confidence spouts from the change in public opinion, caused by the economic downturn, over the past few months

”

ollowing three disastrous by-election performances, the loss of a high profile mayor and a “drubbing” in the local elections, it is scarcely a surprise that opposition politicians and hostile commentators are running riot in an attempt to maximise the political capital to be gained from Labour’s unpopularity. Indeed, in the frantic clamber for the political fallout, many have compared the situation to that of John Major’s; a government torn by internal rivalry, gripped by major ideological differences and doomed by a bleak economic situation, partly of its own creation. Such an assessment, however, is both premature and inaccurate. For unlike the Conservatives of that time, Labour has never been as united in its purpose and values. Moreover no reasonable analyst can claim that the present economic difficulties are homegrown. The question to be asked therefore, is why a party with such a formidable government record is asking serious questions about the direction and leadership that took it to three major general election victories. What, then, has changed? In a late night interview, Diane Abbott MP questioned the ability of the party to withstand “hard times” after such a positive decade. Whilst such a question is somewhat exaggerated, it does highlight the fact that the party is allowing itself to be shunted to an unjust defeat by the new economic challenge. The fatalism that is beginning to erode at Labour’s confidence spouts from the change in public opinion, caused by the economic

downturn, over the past few months. Yet if the party maintains its ideological confidence, its ability to communicate it and its united approach, Labour will be the party to win next time around. Eleven years ago the Labour Party won the argument convincingly over the need for a benevolent and strong state to generate the equality of opportunity needed for a fair and responsible society. The argument remains the same today. However eleven years ago we were fighting a rescue mission for our public services and a society on the brink of collapse following two decades of divisive misrule. We know today that we have won the battle for our public services and, in doing so, have shifted the centre of British politics to the left. This brings with it a new threat, with a cynical and shallow Tory party scrambling to don New Labour clothing before it returns to its old ways. Consequently whilst our values remain just as relevant to Britain and as unchanged as before, the challenge for their execution has changed completely. In order to win, we should be proud of the sweeping improvements our movement has made, but must recognise that now it is no longer a fight for survival - it is a fight to do justice to these improvements in the face of an apparent consensus. We need a change in policy direction to achieve finally a fair society. Such an approach will involve responding to the threats of globalisation to our own industry and financial stability. We need to recognise that to enfranchise those isolated by the system, we need to offer them greater influence

over their education and their future. There has to be a greater devolution of power within our services alongside investment being concentrated where poverty is still at its highest. We need to invest far more within the inner-city to erode the income gap that will create an irreversible underclass. It is through reforms and investment to health and education and a mass programme of decent social housing that long term financial divisions can finally be tackled. This can be coupled with the current welfare reform to reward those who work whilst protecting the majority of those who genuinely are unable to. There must also be a maintenance of an internationalist foreign policy to tackle the world’s environmental and security threat, utilising the power of the EU and a new American presidency to its very limit. This conference season gives us the perfect opportunity to regain the direction we have lost since the snowball effect of the economic downturn. It should also act as the platform from which we can outshine an hollow opposition and begin the energetic countdown to the next election. Yet if we are to win, coherent policy alone is not enough. We need to maintain the ability to communicate effectively what we stand for. At all levels of the movement we need to be proud of our achievements and unashamedly repeating our commitment to a fair society. We need to use modern methods to communicate to people of all ages our agenda for the future. David Cameron has made it clear that he does not believe an election should be

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

fought upon policy and direction, but upon presentation. If this is to be the case when he stands for Downing Street then let us take the fight to him, as the natural party of progressive Britain, by presenting our depth and values in the same way as he presents his lifestyle and centre-parting. We know the Conservatives have not changed at all. We know Cameron spends half of his time silencing the persistent right of the party whilst he make unreasonable commitments to Britain. At a time when the aims of the apparent consensus between the parties can be reached, the Conservatives propose replacing social security with charity, deregulation, Euro scepticism and unrealistic financial commitments. The Labour Party needs, therefore, to become far more aggressive in showing such tactics and seizing, therefore, the agenda. Through a vocal and strong cabinet, a consistently slick media message and a confident membership, we will not only beat them at their own game but stay true to our beliefs. Yet such noble aspirations do seem unrealistic in the current climate of disloyalty and dispute. The Labour movement is incredibly lucky in that it is the most diverse in Britain today; from its firm historical roots of socialism to the modernising wings. In spite of the foretold disputes between its sections, it should be proud that it has such a large pool from which to form policy. It does, however, mean that the Labour Party is currently in danger of appearing divided. This arrives partly from the accession of Gordon Brown, whereby the Left wrongly judged the arrival

of the socialism for which it had for song long waited. Moreover, those sections of the party that had flourished under Blair have begun to attack Brown for lacking his own clear agenda (although media speculation over supposed Blairites should be taken with much salt). Yet although criticisms of the party’s leadership differ, they do have the same root; a root which can be found amongst all parties that have governed over a period of economic uncertainty. The essay began with the analogy of Major’s Conservative Party which, grappling with a deep recession, responded with a damaging period of introspection (catalysed, of course, by countless other divisions and rivalries). In doing so, it undermined its leadership, its own ability to govern and its future credibility for an extended period of time. Whilst the current situation is by no means as extreme, it is true that the party has begun to question its own leadership; a leadership that has overseen the most stable and affluent (if divided) economy Britain has ever seen. It is quite surprising and disheartening to see a party, which so readily backed Brown, so prepared to turn its back on him. Even if one was never in favour of Brown’s leadership, one has to concede that any form of leadership election would be damning to the party and would certainly condemn us to defeat. Disunited parties lose elections. If we are to win in the next election, we should remind ourselves of our common values, our shared experiences and our wishes for the future of Britain. If that fails to convince us, then we only have to look across the

“

We know the Conservatives have not changed at all. We know Cameron spends half of his time silencing the persistent right of the party whilst he make unreasonable commitments to Britain. At a time when the aims of the apparent consensus between the parties can be reached, the Conservatives propose replacing social security with charity, deregulation, Euro scepticism and unrealistic financial commitments.

floor and see the alternative. There should be an immediate end to any form of leadership speculation; something that does not serve to ignite policy renewal or to improve our public standing. The party and its friends must remember why we chose Gordon Brown by our thousands. Politicians so principled, so able to govern and so able to recognise the needs of Britain are few and far between. We must play to his strengths. But at the same time we must recognise that a strong and dynamic cabinet can make up for the weaknesses of any prime minister. The party must not allow the present economic problems to lead to a period of unnecessary and damaging introspection. We must remember that whilst we indulge in feeling sorry for ourselves, we allow the Conservative Party a free ride. Continuing to undermine the hard and justified work of the Prime Minister and his cabinet will allow the Conservatives in through the back door, meaning our work will result in nothing. The Labour Party has been successful in winning the argument over the past ten years. Moreover, with a Tory Party emptier than it ever was before, the task has become far easier. If the La-

”

bour Party can combine then its policy, its personalities, its presentation and its idealism, it will be able to set the political agenda for another ten. Winning the next election will be easy if we remember the winning formula we have previously used. Our movement must be united in its purpose and common values, using them to take the battle to the Conservatives. We must remain to be the idealistic and naturally progressive party of Britain, being able to formulate and adapt policy in a world that moves so quickly. We must present, moreover, our views in a consistent and slick way. But above all, we have to be proud of our work and must remember, in any time of difficulty, why we continue to strive for our aims. This is fortunately summed up on the back of every membership card: The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

anticipations

LESS IS MORE?

Labour need to make more of the fewer resources available to them in order to win the next election, argues Omar Salem

W Omar Salem is a member of the Young Fabians

“

One of Labour’s biggest assets is our members. To win the general election we will need to do more to make the most of members’ skills, enthusiasm and ideas

”

e all know that at the moment the Labour party has less. Less money. Less staff. Just less. What we really need is more. More money. More staff. More votes. Especially more votes. So, we need more from less. The question is how. Of course, the politics will always play a central role. It’s difficult to get support if you have bad policies. At the same time organisation, management and strategic planning can make a big difference to a political party. After all, Karl Rove and the Republicans got George Bush elected. Twice. A well run, imaginative and open party is also more likely to make the right policy choices and do a better job of communicating these to voters. In 1997 Labour was at the cutting edge in terms of organisation, but since then the Tories have been catching up. They are better funded, have invested in new technologies and improved the management of the party. Although Lord Ashcroft is known for the millions of pounds he is channelling into the Conservative’s target seats, he is less known for the discipline and planning he is introducing to the Conservative campaigns in those seats. Conservative candidates are asked to submit proposals for funding from their target seats fund. These are vetted and successful applicants must report regularly on progress are closely monitored. What this means is that Conservative campaigns in target seats aren’t only better resourced than they have been in the past but they are better run. I don’t want to depress the reader – but the Conservatives are doing more with more. To beat them we need to raise our game in three key areas: leveraging in new resource, getting more from members and supporters, and getting more from existing resources. To win the next election will

need to find new resources from more supporters to knock on doors, to more money for direct mails to voters. To achieve this we will need to lower the barriers to getting involved with and supporting the party. New technologies will help. During the Democratic primaries in America around half of the $287 million in donations came in donations of less that $200. In part, this was because the Obama campaign has an open web platform which makes it easy for anyone to get involved. Labour’s equivalent, membersnet, is a useful resource for members with better and more easily accessible information on campaigning and resources than ever before. But only members can use it. Why not open it up in whole or part - to any Labour supporter? People don’t join the Labour party to get a username and password for membersnet – and I doubt that they ever will. However, opening up membersnet to supporters would allow us to better engage and involve them in Labour’s activities – making it more likely that they will join the party. There are other ways we can learn from America to get more resource – from using social networking sites to software developed by blue state digital which allows supporters (whether party members or not) to phone canvas from home. One of Labour’s biggest assets is our members. To win the general election we will need to do more to make the most of members’ skills, enthusiasm and ideas. With party resources stretched this will require a different approach to how we train and develop members, with members playing a greater role and a willingness to learn from other successful membership organisations like Friends of the Earth. Members are already involved informally in much of the train-

ing that occurs in the party. One way of extending members’ role would be for the party to set up a national training matching website. Party members with skills to teach could upload profiles of what they have to teach and viceversa. The party could support this with accreditation for members who have certain skills. The process could help identify members with useful skills beyond those have been focussed on the party. For example, a CLP Treasurer looking could log-in and find an experienced professional fundraiser with a few hours to spare to help plan a fundraising event. At other times in may help pass skills and knowledge between areas or regions. For example, a first-time candidate standing in a sudden council by-election could find an experienced campaign manager to mentor and support the candidate by phone during the campaign. Finally, we must take a long hard look at how we use our existing resources. This will involve asking some tough questions. Do we really need offices in central London right bang smack by Parliament? Are we making the best and most strategic use of our staff? To get the best of our resources the party will need to improve its planning at the national, regional and local level. At every level the party should aim to go through a process of developing a plan with clear aims and targets focussed on the next general election. This plan should cover everything from membership recruitment, to training members and financing. If we can make progress in the areas outlined we won’t only have the organisational foundations to beat the Tories at the next election. A better organised party will be more in touch with the public and members and more open to the new ideas needed to win. Better organisation isn’t just a good idea. It’s also good politics.

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

IN A SPIN

Labour should be deprioritise media management so as to be more honest with the electorate, writes Gavin Freeguard

or all the political mistakes, lost by-elections and controversial Commons votes, the loss of control over ‘the narrative’ might yet be the biggest factor preventing Labour’s values from claiming another election victory. As any reader of 1984 knows, who controls the past controls the future, and who controls the present controls the past. The media controls the present – they are the prism through which we see our world – and they’ve made up their mind about the Brown Government. There are four main narratives working against Labour: 1. The decline and fall of Brown. In September 2003, the Lib Dems won the Brent East byelection with a 29% swing from Labour. In July 2008, the SNP won the Glasgow East by-election with a 22.54% swing from Labour. The reporting of Glasgow East was accompanied by the galloping of the four horsemen of the apocalypse: The Guardian even dedicated an article to translating the swing nationally, assessing who would lead the remaining 20 Labour MPs. Needless to say, there were no such calculations following Brent East, despite the higher swing (and taking the other differences – Iraq, Scotland, the economy – into account). News organisations have become so obsessed with decline and fall that Early Day Motions critical of Brown get more airtime than important agreements between the CBI, unions and the Government on workers’ rights; leadership challenges are everywhere; and good news is nowhere to be seen. The media have made their minds up; the narrative is set; only one hell of a plot twist could change it now. 2. Economic downturn. After a decade of economic growth, gravity is dragging economic figures, financial expectations and all incumbent governments back down to earth with

a wallop. Sarkozy’s ratings have plummeted; 63% of Spaniards think Zapatero has no solution. All this is, of course, the government’s fault: it has nothing to do with the privatised profit and socialised losses of the City, irresponsible individual spending, or media obsession with consumerism and house prices. Brown is doubly buffeted by this: not only is he the incumbent, but an incumbent who presided over the Treasury for ten years. 3. Cynicism. As any Daily Mail reader knows, all politicians are pigs with their snouts stuck firmly in the trough. The very idea that politicians go into politics for anything other than personal gain is now an alien concept. Take David Davis’ resignation. ‘Tory farce’ and ‘self-indulgence’, wrote one Times columnist (‘From Bruiser to Loser’ thundered the Thunderer’s editorial). Davis laughed off suggestions of a ‘late life crisis’, said the BBC’s Nick Robinson. The very idea that Davis might be making a stand – the sort of stand papers demand from politicians – was largely lost. The cynicism narrative will damage whoever is in power. It will be most dangerous when the public accept it as Gramscian common sense, if they haven’t already. 4. Brobdingagianism. In Gulliver’s Travels, the eponymous voyager visits Brobdingnag, where the inhabitants are colossal. They are also virtuous, their physical size representing this. Any imperfection would be multiplied by virtue of their size; so for the size of their virtue. ‘Brobdingnagianism’ operates on two levels. On a general level, we expect politicians, those deified devils, to achieve miracles. On a specific level, Labour since 1997 has raised expectations: Blair came to power with a popular landslide; public services and the economy have performed brilliantly; PM Brown’s first few months were widely lauded. The problem is the expectation gap:

politicians will never be able to solve all of the world’s problems; 1997 had the audacity to raise hopes beyond anything which could be delivered; and Labour successes mean we expect more of our public services, and judge them against standards far higher than before. This all makes Labour seem like innocent victim. But Number 10’s recent handling of the press has been poor: so convinced were the BBC that a general election would be called, that their budget was signed off and their set designed; upon Brown’s recent trip to Basra, journalists briefed to expect a major announcement (i.e. withdrawal) were disappointed; leaks of discontent have become a deluge. Media hostility is thus hardly a surprise. If Labour is more spinned against than spinning, it is because no leadership of the narrative is being exerted. So what can be done? On the one hand, Labour has to care about the media – media management must be improved. But on the other, the narratives are set, and we must be realistic. The next election is almost certainly lost, whoever leads Labour into it. Labour has to appeal to the people. Where Labour has cared about the media is in pandering to the tabloids with populist, ‘nasty party’, short-term fixes: what is needed is a longer-term strategy, one which isn’t afraid to define what Labour stands for. Honesty is the best policy. However, the crux of the media problem is an unwillingness to define, promote and ultimately celebrate what it is we stand for. Labour must lead, and not follow, the media. Now is the time to be brave – something which will garner respect, if not electoral support. Only returning to our values offers any hope of victory. If we don’t, it may be more than an election that is lost: it may be the soul of our party. And that is one narrative we definitely don’t want to see.

Gavin Freeguard is a member of the Young Fabians

“

Labour must lead, and not follow, the media. Now is the time to be brave – something which will garner respect, if not electoral support

”

anticipations

ON THE ROAD TO NOWHERE

Radically rethinking Britain’s transport infrastructure is not only necessary, but may also bring electoral gains contends Adrian Prandle

P Adrian Prandle is Officer Without Portfolio of the Young Fabians

“

We need to be radical. We probably need to accept that much of the existing railway track needs to be dug up, replaced and replotted

”

ublic transport. What has Labour done in eleven years? Sadly, not enough. Sure there have been some achievements – the introduction of free bus travel for Britain’s eleven million disabled and older people springs to mind. But on the whole we’ve – no pun intended – lacked direction and crucially, ambition. Yet there remains a huge opportunity. A dynamic and ambitious approach to public transport based upon furthering equality of opportunity and boosting the economy, can help the left gain a good ‘win’ across society. And thus, across the wide electoral coalition that we need to bring us another term of government. We must be bold to deliver and bold to win, and we must not let values and victory be mutually exclusive. Though Labour has never seemed to get to get to grips with a positive policy platform in the context of rail privatisation, fare concessions on buses is not all we’ve done. Labour is in the process of introducing 1300 new rail carriages to join the additional four and a half thousand in service since 1997. Bus subsidies have almost doubled in real terms since 1997 whilst the Local Transport Bill passing through parliament this year will give local authorities greater freedom and choice to tailor services. Important as that is, you can make your own mind up as to whether you think that is going to change Britons’ lives. But let’s not forget that government support, ultimately through funding grants totalling £3 billion, helped deliver the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Britain’s first section of high-speed railway, on budget and ahead of time. The first major new railway to be constructed in this country for over 100 years shows that infrastructure on a big scale can be delivered. But unfortunately, in demonstrating that we can, it highlights

that we haven’t – as well as that we need to. You don’t need to use the railways to understand that planning, design and construction done over a hundred-year period is not going to be able to provide the service that modern Britain requires. Where are the high-speed rail plans from top to bottom of Britain? And why haven’t we moved to develop a genuinely integrated public transport system that tackles the problem of rural buses ending where local train services haven’t started? We lack – and 2007’s rail white paper didn’t provide it – a very bold strategy to transform public experience. It is their experience, of course, that will translate into votes. We can and should use our values as the basis to be ambitious in transport. Though public transport gives the population the freedom to do all sorts of things, it should ultimately be seen through the prism of being an equalities issue. With speed, extensiveness, reliability and a fair fares system, the list of who would benefit from a 21st century transport system is lengthy. With a truly integrated network, those in smaller towns and rural areas would be opened up to wider work opportunities. With more affordable inter-city fares those on lower incomes would be more able to travel further for job interviews or training and re-skilling courses. With high-speed and efficient services, the business community could work more effectively around the UK and Europe. This in turn helps not just them but the wider economy – which would also be boosted by tourists travelling further across the country and spending more of their money outside of London. With these genuine incentives to use trains and bus services, we could see environmental benefit and greater energy security by discouraging domestic and near European flights and bringing

drivers off the road. Rather than fearing or confronting the driving lobby, the left should realise some people do need cars (think of the single mum in a small village) but that others should be given a positive reason to leave them at home. Why don’t people drive in London? It’s because of a genuinely extensive and integrated public transport system and because of congestion (created in part by the number of bus only lanes). So we need to be radical. We probably need to accept that much of the existing railway track needs to be dug up, replaced and re-plotted. And we shouldn’t waste time in determining that high-speed rail is going to be a large part of this strategy. The government has sent out mixed messages in recent years on high-speed rail. Clearly this will take time and money. But we shouldn’t shirk responsibility or scale down ambition. There are options. Introducing financial disincentives to travel (alone) by car is controversial but not politically impossible if you create viable and attractive alternative means of transport. Or we could return to a hypothecated National Insurance rise. The opposition won’t beat us on this. Much of their support doesn’t really believe in public transport and they won’t commit to the investment needed. But there are concrete ends that people will see on a day-today basis. And they’ll vote on these things. So why don’t we, or why haven’t we? I suspect the answer is an understandable aversion to tax increases (and fear of hypothecation) and ultimately the huge cost. But the cost of not making such bold moves could be even greater. Not just to this Labour government but to a British public who will be best served by having a centre-left party in power. Everything is at stake.

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

WEAK CONSTITUTION

The relationship between the devolved nations and the union must be clarified, contends Peter Flynn

or more than a decade, Labour has been the main party of devolution in Westminster. The clear majorities in favour of the settlement in 1997, and the election of Labour administrations in Scotland and Wales in 1999 no doubt encouraged Labour activists to feel that the tricky issue of the Union and the constitution had been resolved for a generation. Most nationalists in Scotland and Wales, it seemed, had been appeased, while the party in Westminster could get on with fulfilling the rest of its manifesto commitments. In the past year, however, a string of high-profile electoral defeats, coupled with the appointment of a Scottish Prime Minister, have served only to highlight the party’s new and unique vulnerability on matters relating to the union, in which it has lost the narrative of being a party “for Scotland” north of the border to the SNP, and has appeared unaccountable to some in England, given that its leader is Scottish; a seeming lose-lose situation in the run-up to the next general election. Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian question was never properly resolved, with the result that we now have a constitutional arrangement which does not satisfactorily join up, where the Scottish Nationalists argue that Westminster is somehow neglecting Scotland, while English commentators seem increasingly dissatisfied with what is seen as the inherent unfairness of a system which allows Scottish MPs to vote on matters of sole relevance to English constituents. Of course, the devolution situation is far more complicated than this, and the fact is that much “English-only” legislation will have at least some impact on devolved legislatures as well, while the fact that Scotland is represented in proportion to its percentage of UK population

in Westminster indicates that the issue is more intricate than the broader brush strokes of such arguments allow. However, the Labour party must deal with these broader arguments of perceived unfairness which have registered with the electorate throughout the United Kingdom as a result of an incomprehensive devolution settlement, and must reform the shape of its party and policy, if it is to effectively stand up to such criticism. Politically, it is worth remembering that constitutional imbalances have already had a marked impact on the party’s electoral fortunes, given that one of the SNP’s most enduring attacks on Jack McConnell in 2007 was that he was answerable more to the Westminster party, to “London Labour”, than to the people of Scotland. The nationalists portrayed themselves as the party for Scotland, and as a result of effective party narrative, gained control of the Scottish government. The other issues in play in that election - including the Iraq war and Trident - indicate that the line between Holyrood and Westminster politics is blurred, with the result that, if Labour is to avoid a similar electoral assault by the SNP in the next Westminster election, as well as in the 2011 Holyrood election, it must be seen to be as much of a party for Scotland as the SNP. If it fails to do this, the electorate may well prove Alex Salmond’s own prediction accurate and send at least 20 SNP MPs to the House of Commons, mostly at Labour’s expense. The party must hope that its next leader in Holyrood can go some way to resolving these problems. Labour is in a similar position in England. Here the issue of the constitution is becoming increasingly political, even although there is no major proindependence party contesting elections. Given that Labour was the party responsible for

the devolution settlement which has resulted in the hyperbolic “Scottish Raj”, it is given the blame for its perceived unfairness and thus must also be the party that resolves it. Kenneth Clarke’s own Democracy Taskforce proposals on how to reverse the imbalance of Labour’s devolution have registered with southern voters, indicating that if either of the two parties is seen as being the most serious at trying to develop a fairer Union, it is the Conservatives. The Labour Party, then, must make moves to ensure that the Conservatives do not continue to be seen as being more of a party “for England” than Labour, or it will find itself in much the same position as it has in Scotland. Although the constitution will never be one of Labour’s core values in the same way that social justice is, if the party does not resolve the issues devolution has thrown up, and readjust to changed political circumstances in Scotland and across the rest of the United Kingdom, standing up for its central principles will become more difficult, since it will be fighting an SNP government in Scotland and a Conservative government in Westminster, along with a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the Union as a whole. The party cannot leave the Conservatives to be seen as the only party providing answers to these problems in Westminster, and the SNP to be seen as the only party fully committed to Scotland. Clearly, then, the Labour Party, at both a UK and Holyrood level, must make some motion towards becoming a party for the whole United Kingdom again, as well as for each of its constituent parts. It must redress the lingering imbalances and imperfections of a constitutional arrangement it had championed, or risk furtheir future electoral decline in UK and devolved elections as a result.

Peter Flynn is a member of the Young Fabians

“

The Labour Party must make moves to ensure that the Tories do not continue to be seen as being more of a party “for England” than Labour, or it will find itself in much the same position as it has in Scotland

”

anticipations

FROM VALUES TO VICTORY

IT’S MY PARTY AND IT’LL DIE IF IT WANTS TO

Labour needs to do better at bringing on young talent to ensure its long term survival, particularly given the old guard cannot let Thatcher go, argues Alex Baker

“Y Alex Baker is editor of Anticipations

“

The party is particularly bad at recognising young talent and ensuring the ambition, energy and boundless imagination of younger members translates into action on the ground, and success at the ballot box

”

ou may have to fight a battle more than once to win it,” once remarked Margaret Thatcher. Despite her ailing health and the fact it has been almost two decades since she was Prime Minister, it appears she is a woman of her word. At least part of Labour’s electoral success in 1997 came by defining themselves against the harsh reality of the Thatcher era. So too in 2001. And again in 2005. But now the spectre of the Iron Lady has lost its electoral appeal: the 1980s are a distant memory to some, its economic problems too similar to today for others. Plus, there is an ever increasing tranche of the electorate who have no true conception of what the 1980s were really like (the majority of readers of this publication, for example). So it is disappointing that Labour has not moved on from its clarion call of old - that of urging voters to remember how bad things used to be ‘back then’. If Labour are to win the next election - and that is by no means impossible, just increasingly improbable - then they will have to recast their political mission statement. Not being the Tories of two decades ago just doesn’t cut it anymore. But the party has found it difficult to move on. Whilst most put this down to a general fatigue with being in power for the last decade, there is in fact more truth in the suggestion that the party is particularly bad at recognising young talent and ensuring the ambition, energy and boundless imagination of younger members translates into action on the ground, and success at the ballot box. There is, of course, wild variation in the way constituency Labour parties treat younger members: some are very good at getting them involved; oth-

ers less so. However, I do not think it too much of a generalisation to suggest that where young members do get involved at a constituency level, they are all too often seen as the pack-horses of leafleting campaigns. Exceptions exist - young Labour Councillors or branch chairs - but this is the exception rather than the rule. In politics in general, older generations tend to hang around well past their sell-by date. But this is as true of those in Westminster, as of those in town halls and CLP committees up and down the country. There is all too often a misguided notion that the older one gets, the better one is at ‘being a politician’. Oh were it so - the current bunch of MPs in Westminster (of all sides) aren’t necessarily a brilliant advertisement for the way selections work. Yet we do not see this attitude in other areas of life. In sport, in film and television, and in business, one can succeed, and is encouraged to do so, from a very early age. Yet in politics, you’re lucky if you hold a position of any import whilst in your twenties, and can probably give up on any ambitions for a shot at a decent Westminster seat until well into your thirties or forties. Does this make for better Westminster legislation, or politicking elsewhere? Not really. However, it does result in a particularly unedifying orgy of sycophancy and patronage - the only assured route into an otherwise unmeritocratic career path. Another problem with older generations if that they become increasingly unwilling to change or accept change - “long in the tooth” - and typically hark on about how good/bad things used to be. This, I have found, is especially problematic at the local

constituency or branch level of the Labour party. I have lost count the number of CLP meetings I have gone to where the attending smattering of activists really just want to spend hours moaning about how crap things were under Thatcher. Forget about the problems of today - they were her fault too. This visibly raw emotional hurt at the Thatcher years was useful in galvanising support for the party in the 90s, and helped to an extent in 2001 and 2005. But it is now outdated, and the party is suffering as a result. “Renewal” was a term oftused last year, but in practice ended up meaning a shuffle of the existing ministerial line-up to give a semblence of change. If the party is to win the next election then renewal has to be more wholesale than that. The first place to start is in our CLPs - the older generations need to move on (both physically and ideologically) and allow younger generations the opportunity to take their ideas and enthusiasm forward. The party structures too need to change. More regard needs to be made at the national policy level of suggestions and thoughts from the grassroots - it is clear that partnership in power and the NPF only go some way to ensuring ideas are reflected upward. The consequences of the old guard failing to let go of their grip on the party are already starting to show themselves - membership is in decline and young people are increasingly disinterested in getting involved in party politics. Failure to act could turn a trend in membership into a terminal condition. And were that to occur, then Thatcher would - after many years of leaving office - have won a battle she started almost three decades ago.

OTHER ISSUES

WOMEN ARE NOT STUPID

Women should be given greater access to emergency contraceptives, argue Ellie Levenson

oung Fabians are lucky. We are all of the age where if we have needed it, emergency contraception (also called the morning after pill) has been available relatively easily, through the doctor, a family planning clinic or from a pharmacy. This means that if our usual contraception has failed, or if we have forgotten to use some or got carried away in the heat of the moment, we have been able to minimise our chances of a pregnancy by using emergency contraception. However access to emergency contraception could be a lot easier. At the moment if a woman wants emergency contraception she must get it herself at the time of needing it. Although in 2006 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society issued a statement saying that it is not against the advanced supply of emergency contraception in principle, in many instances women are being refused advance provision by pharmacists. This means that a woman can’t buy it in advance from pharmacies to keep in the bathroom cabinet in case a condom splits. Nor can someone else buy it for her unless they can convince the pharmacist that it is an exceptional situation such as a person being housebound. Being stuck at work or at home looking after children is not usually deemed a good enough reason. Mums cannot buy it for daughters. Nor can her friend. And nor can the other party responsible for contraception - the man - buy it. Many people including some pharmacists argue that this is because emergency contraception should not be used other than in an emer-

gency and that they need to ask certain questions of women before they can take it. This is why my website campaigning on this issue is called www.womenarenotstupid.co.uk. By keeping access limited the system suggests that we are not clever enough to diagnose our need or suitability to take emergency contraception, something we actually do every time we take a painkiller which, taken wrongly, could also harm us. Better access to emergency contraception would also help tackle the number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies in the UK. Emergency contraception is 95% effective if taken within 24 hours of unprotected sex but just 58% effective if taken 72 hours later. So if you could go to your bathroom cabinet as soon as you realize you didn’t use effective contraception, or if you could go to the bedside drawer of the person you have slept with and get what you need, then you have a much better chance of preventing pregnancy than if you have to get to the pharmacist a couple of days later. And to the critics who say this promotes promiscuity, the answer is of course, so what, who we have sex with and when is a personal issue. But in actual fact research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), looked at a study of more than 2,000 women and found that those women who had advance access to emergency contraception were no more likely to have unprotected sex than the other groups - but, when they did, they were twice as likely to use emergency contraception. This is an issue Young Fabians should care about particularly because it is an issue

for the left, not only because the arguments against better access to emergency contraception often wrongly focus on morality, and not only because access is about women’s empowerment generally, but because current rules discriminate against poorer sections of society. Since only the woman taking it can purchase it, the rules disproportionately affect women in shift work or who work more than one job, women with multiple caring roles, single working women with kids and women in isolated communities. If there is not a nearby pharmacist open 24 hours a day, or an available doctor’s appointment, or someone to cover childcare, or if leaving work early means forgoing a day’s pay, then it is the poorest sections of society who will not get access to emergency contraception in time and will face the most unwanted pregnancies.   So what can you do to help the campaign? First, familiarize yourself with the textbook answers you need to obtain emergency contraception and then go to the pharmacist and buy some in advance to keep just in case. They will want to know that you are in the middle of your cycle, that the contraception is for yourself and that you had unprotected sex very recently. Then sign the petition at http://petitions.number10. gov.uk/morningafterpill/ and write to your MP about this – a sample letter can be found at www.womenarenotstupid.co.uk. And I’d encourage you to write about this issue, blog about it and email your friends asking them to sign the petition. Let’s seize the right to control our fertility back from pharmacists.

Ellie Levenson is a freelance journalist and was editor of Fabian Review 2002-04. She is a member of Tottenham CLP.

“

By keeping access limited the system suggests that we are not clever enough to diagnose our need or suitability to take emergency contraception

”

anticipations

REDEFINING SOVEREIGNTY

Samuel Dale on the moral case for humanitarian interventionism

“W

e are all internationalists now, whether we like it

Samuel Dale is a member of the Young Fabians

“

The Iraq War has made intervention for any reason a virtual taboo and a deep scepticism encompasses most thought about the possibilities of using hard power for good purposes

”

or not” Throughout the Blair years Britain’s foreign policy has been driven by a fierce belief in internationalism and the belief that globalisation can be harnessed as a force for good in economic and political terms. This article argues for military humanitarian intervention in extreme cases here as outlined in the “Doctrine of the International Community” or the ‘Blair Doctrine’ speech in Chicago, 1999. The Iraq War has made intervention for any reason a virtual taboo and a deep scepticism encompasses most thought about the possibilities of using hard power for good purposes. However, the case needs to made once more in support of the Blair Doctrine to remember the ideals and principles behind interventionism particularly now that its biggest advocate has left office. Traditionally, international relations have been based on realist assumptions of legal and political coherence and pragmatism, manifested in the system of sovereign states. John Ruggie defines sovereignty as “the institutionalisation of public authority within mutually exclusive jurisdictional domains.” The theoretical basis of the sovereign state system comes from the early 17th Century through Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius and the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. Hobbes, writing in the context of the English Civil War in Leviathan (1651) championed the absolute sovereign as a precursor to peace and stability. His social contract was designed to convert man from a chaotic state of nature to peaceful co-operation through an absolute sovereign. Tara McCormack describes Hobbesian sovereignty developing into “liberal political theory…….of trading away certain freedoms

in return for the collective security provided by the state”. In the modern state it is the public authority of the sovereign government that must act both in the collective and individual interests of its citizens, chiefly to provide security. Internationally the priority of the state to prevent wars, based on this central tenet Hugo Grotius devised the first real system of international law upon the legitimacy of the sovereign state. Grotius’ was disturbed at the “lack of restraint in relation to war” and “that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law”. In his De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), he affirmed the overall importance of lawguided behaviour to avoid anarchy, similar to Hobbes. These ideas have shaped the modern international system and were given legal precedent through the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Stephen Krasner claims that although Westphalia is an icon for international scholars ushering in a new era based on sovereign states rather than Christendom, feudalism or empire, it has not been a turning point in history. Sovereignty, according to Krasner was the codifying of existing practices rather than a new concept; sovereignty was used after the Peace of Westphalia to isolate the papacy and justify tax collection. Only when sovereign states became powerful in their own right were they capable of limiting the claims of external actors. These traditions have been enshrined in the UN Charter, particularly Article 2 (4): All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Simon Chesterton argues that the United Nations is inconsistent with intervention of any kind including humanitarian. Chesterton highlights UN Security Council (UNSC) declaring interventions illegal in various resolutions such as; UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 332 [See Bibliography for UNSCRs source] in 1973 condemning Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, UNSCR 455 in 1979 condemning the Rhodesian into Zambia as a violation of Zambia’s territorial integrity and finally UNSCR 545 in 1983 condemning South Africa being involved in Angola. Additionally UNSCR 1441 in 2002 affirmed “the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq” preceding an invasion of the nation without further resolutions. Chesterton confronts Fernando Teson’s view that the promotion of human rights is equally important in the UN Charter as controlling international conflict and that the prohibition of humanitarian intervention through Article 2(4) is a distortion. Chesterton invokes UN Charter Article 1(1), the primary purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security” as opposed to the third purpose; “to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights”. Echoing Oscar Schacter’s observation in 1984, Chesterton claims that to interpret this as a right to humanitarian intervention stretches the Orwellian school of interpretation. This tradition has always been challenged and violated as Krasner asserts, Terry Nardin argues that there is another tradition of intervening to help others. Nardin states that earlymodern natural law upheld the tacit ‘law of nations’ whereby

OTHER ISSUES

the modern justification for war of self defence was only one of a number of justifications. In Thomas More’s Utopia, Utopians only go to war “to protect their own land, to drive invading armies from the territories of their friends, or to liberate an oppressed people, in the name of humanity, from tyranny and servitude”. Sixteenth century Christian interventionist Francisco de Vitoria claimed that acts such as sodomy, adultery and theft contravene natural law but do not justify intervention; however, especially evil acts such as cannibalism and human sacrifice do justify intervention. Extreme cases of abuse and inhumanity call for intervention, basic human decency calls for action and there is a tradition emphasising the human impulse to help others. “One state should not feel as though it has a right to change the political system of another” however we can not stand idly by and watch atrocities that are within our means to stop and allow them to continue; there is a moral imperative to act. Nardin’s case for humanitarian intervention is justified upon a common morality through Kant’s ‘principle of respect’. Kant argues morality is formed not on custom or positive law of international or domestic law but on reason. It invokes a standard “by which everybody ought to live, no matter what the mores of his neighbours might be”. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDoHR) offers thirty articles stating a modern ‘common morality’, it states no “State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. The UN wanted the Declaration “to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction

based on the political status of countries or territories.” Since the end of the Cold War individual rights have been prioritised over the rights of states, Blair declared “no longer is our existence as states under threat”. International treaties, alliances, prosperity, freedom and strong domestic institutions have made Western liberal democracies strong entities and allowed the “rights of all members of the human family [to be]..the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Helping individuals who are victims of basic human rights violations, genocide and ethnic cleansing has growing support amongst the international community displaying an evolution to permit interventions in extreme cases. Kofi Annan welcomed this evolution “despite its limitations and imperfections, it is testament to a humanity that cares more, for the suffering in its midst and will do more, and not less to end it”. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Report in 2001 stated that sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their citizens but if they fail that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states. Additionally UNSCR 688 (1991) tacitly broke the UN Charter, which describes international peace and security as the absence of interstate war, the resolution declared the gassing of the Kurdish minority in Northern Iraq as “a threat to international peace and security”. Throughout the 1990s the trend has been displayed through US interventions in Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda and the United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR) of 1994 which was “people centred” and “focused on human life and dignity”. Many have criticised the legal and political implications of the move away from absolute state sovereignty as an international framework. Tara McCormack,

“

Blair states that “acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter”, brutal oppression, minority rule and persecution must always be opposed by the international community. There is a moral imperative to act in such circumstances and whilst vague, a framework can be designed in exceptional cases of humanitarian catastrophe

whilst acknowledging its noble and moral appeal claims it is a retreat to a neo-Hobbesian state of nature. She condemns individual security in two ways; operationalization and securitization. McCormack criticises the conceptual overstretch of security to mean everything and nothing which “securitizes” all conceivable problems. This has “operational” implications and makes a coherent strategy for tackling a myriad of concerns impossible because there is no, and can not be, a framework for action. The justification for humanitarian intervention has been a source of fierce and varied debate particularly attempting to specify a threshold for intervention, considering McCormack’s conceptual overstretch critique. Scholars vary on their interpretations of when to intervene; Michael Walzer sets the bar as a “response (with reasonable expectations of success) to acts that “shock the moral conscience of mankind”’. Walzer’s view is high compared to Fernando Teson and Michael J. Smith who state that governments who commit atrocities and violate human rights forfeit their right to sovereignty. Nicholas Wheeler questions the moral value attached to sovereignty and non-intervention if they provide a licence for governments to violate global humanitarian standards. Despite the variety of thresholds the

”

consensus amongst humanitarian scholars is that certain acts must be stopped, Blair states that “acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter”, brutal oppression, minority rule and persecution must always be opposed by the international community. There is a moral imperative to act in such circumstances and whilst vague, a framework can be designed in exceptional cases of humanitarian catastrophe. Voltaire’s short philosophical story Micromegas is a tale about an alien visiting earth from another planet and observing that men fight over “lumps of earth” and not a single person fighting has a claim to them; “the question is simply whether they will belong to one man called ‘Sultan’ or to another man….called ‘Caesar’”. In a world of secure and strong states a value-based foreign policy rather than one based upon territorial ambition can be executed. This does not condemn the system of sovereign states, the Blair Doctrine states that “we can not right the wrongs of all undemocratic regimes committing barbarous acts, we would do nothing but intervene”. However there must be exceptions; states and dictators who commit serious and repeated human rights violations should no longer be protected under the guise of international peace and security.

anticipations

REPORTS FROM EVENTS

Richard Messingham reflects back on two recent seminars he organised in Westminster for Young Fabian members on “US Politics” and “How to get a career in Politics”.

US POLITICS AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS Richard Messingham is Parliamentary Officer of the Young Fabians

“

The discussion during the seminar showed that many feel, Young Fabians included, that this is a real opportunity for change and a departure from the old politics of the past

”

21st May 2008

n advance of the historically important elections in the USA later this year, Leslie Tsou, Political Secretary at the US Embassy in London led a wide ranging discussion in Westminster on the current state of US politics and the consequences of the November election. Over 50 Young Fabians attended the seminar in Parliament, where Leslie began by explaining a little about her experience of working for the US State Department since 1991, including a posting to Libya where she helped set up the revived diplomatic mission. As both a representative of the US Government and a US Citizen she gave her thoughts issues such as what happens next after the election, the challenges for both the Democrats and Republicans, how fundraising has a significant impact on US politics, and what are the consequences for the US Embassy in London of any regime change for the US. Leslie contrasted the difference between the candidates. McCain is a maverick figure within US politics, who for many Republicans is not considered conservative enough. Therefore, in spite of his significant political experience, he is seen as an outsider within the Republican Party. Obama by contrast is a relatively inexperienced politician when compared with either McCain or Hilary Clinton, and despite his popularity his ethnicity may unfortunately turn-off many. Leslie mentioned the Bradley effect, a US political phe-

nomena relating to a 1982 Gubnatorial election in California, which showed that when a non-white candidate is standing against a white candidate, the significant poll leads the non-white candidate may build up does not always translate into a victory. The Bradley effect may not apply in this election due to Obama’s growing popularity, particularly with non-traditional democrat voters. However, his choice of Vice-Presidential running mate may seek to negate the Bradley effect in order to guarantee his chances of electoral success. Questions from Young Fabians focussed mainly on the Obama’s prospects as a Black Democrat candidate, and how the relationship will play out between the next US President and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, further strengthening the US-UK Special Relationship. All agreed that there was a real feeling of desire for change within the US, further enhanced by the fact that these two candidates do not fit into our exiting perceptions of a normal Republican or Democrat. Both sit in real contract to the earlier the Clinton and Bush Jr Presidencies, trying to create a perception a new administration moving away from the mistakes of the pass such as Iraq. Whatever the result, it was acknowledged that Gordon Brown in particular has had a long history of interest in US politics, particularly through his links with adviser to Bill Clinton in the 1990’s and his regularly holiday in Cape Cod, he will have to engage with whoever wins the election. The issue of Obama as potentially the first successful non-white candidate was mentioned several times during the seminar, and was also

tied in with questions on the significance of the Latino vote. This is an ever growing block of voters which has either gone to the Republicans, or for Hilary Clinton. For Obama this will be a key constituency to win the support of, particularly to prevent it from staying with the Republicans. The choice of John Edwards or Hilary Clinton as Vice President could help assuage the unfortunate concerns of some voters over Obama’s ethnicity. However the influence of her husband Bill could be a detrimental factor in Obama’s view of Hilary Clinton as a running mate. One questioner did perhaps offer Obama hope on this issue, by referencing the TV Series 24, which featured a Black President. Leslie certainly agreed that popular culture could eventually change the traditional mind-sets of many US voters, and begin to make ethnicity less of an issue. All these issues aside, it seemed that this election will provide a historic result. The discussion during the seminar showed that many feel, Young Fabians included, that this is a real opportunity for change and a departure from the old politics of the past. The significance of Clinton as potentially the first female President was made much less significant when compared the potential of Obama as the country’s first Black President. That said, Leslie did conclude by saying that in a decade or two’s time a US political dynasty may reappear, in the form of Chelsea Clinton who has demonstrated during the campaign her potential as the first female US President. However, for the time being it seems that Obama faces a challenging though potentially successful election in the autumn.

REPORTS FROM EVENTS

CAREER IN POLITICS SEMINAR 5th June 2008

ollowing on from the successful “How to Get your opinion in print” seminar with Ellie Levenson, the Young Fabians organised another practical training seminar in our new “How to…” series of events for members, this time on the subject of “How to get a career in politics”. Over 60 Young Fabian members filled a committee room in Parliament’s Portcullis House to hear from three people with jobs in the broad spectrum of political jobs on how they got to where they are today. After introduction by Young Fabian Parliamentary Officer Richard Messingham, Anne Alexander opened with an explanation of what her job entails and the long route she had to take to get to her current job as a Correspondent on the BBC’s Daily Politics Programme. Anne who has previously worked as Political Journalist based in Westminster for regional newspapers in Wolverhampton and Leeds, did not start in a political role immediate after university. Instead she worked in a number of office jobs in her home town in the West Midlands, before a non-political journalistic role with her local paper in Wolverhampton. It was only after Anne took some time out between jobs to work for an MP in Westminster on a voluntary basis that she was able to build upon enough political experience to land her roles working as a Lobby Correspondent for the Wolverhampton Express & Star and then the Yorkshire evening Post. Anne affirmed that it was the combination of dogged determination and taking the time to volunteer for an MP that helped her on

the path to her current role. Following Anne, Claire Kober Head of Policy and Communications at the Family Welfare Association showed that not all political jobs involved working in Westminster. As well as working for a charity, Claire was also elected as Labour Councillor in the London Borough of Haringey in 2006 where she is currently Labour Whip. Claire first had a taste for representative politics, when she was involved in her Student Unions at University and subsequently was elected VicePresident for Welfare in the National Union of Students. Claire believed that it was this student activism in NUS and Labour Students which helped her secure her first job working as Campaign Co-Coordinator for End Child Poverty. She was particularly keen that not all political jobs are working for MPs in Westminster, and her position as a Labour Councillor is something that anyone can do across the UK. Clare was also ready to point out that there are number policy focussed roles that will have a degree of political involveme3nt, for example working for local authority or Government Department based outside of London. The final panellist to speak was Paul Richards who is currently Special Adviser to Hazel Blears, as Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Paul’s role is considered by many as one of the ultimate political jobs, with many dreaming of becoming a so-call ‘spin-doctor’ for a leading political figure. However, Paul explained how he only came to working for Hazel relatively late in his career after working in various communications roles, which was preceded by a Politics degree at the University of Salford where he was actively

involved in the Labour Club there. Paul explained the various components of his typical day working for Hazel, which could include diverse tasks such as reading all the days papers before most people are at work by 09:30, writing two speeches in one day, having to digest complex civil service policy documents and providing general political advice to Hazel on the key issues of the day. Paul particularly empathised that politics can never be a career, in part due to its highly uncertain nature which could see even him out of job by tomorrow if Hazel leaves the cabinet. Instead, he saw politics as a more a vocation, consisting of people who are committed to the particular cause or issue they are working on, and empathises that no-one should enter it for a safe, well-paid future. Instead, he echoed the thoughts of many, that active participation in their local Labour Party was a key pre-requisite for Young Fabian wanting to work in politics. Questions from the floor focussed mainly on how best to secure a first job in politics, whether coming straight out of University or coming from a different career path such as Law or teaching. All three panel members agreed that it is vital to strengthen a CV by demonstrating a range of voluntary experience in addition to a University degree, be it

in Politics or any other related or unrelated subject. As well as involvement in the local labour party, people could volunteer as a Governor of their school a role which brings demonstrable commitment and responsibility. Recognising that it is difficult for everyone to come to London to work for an MP or think-tank or political party for free as an intern for 6 months or more, it is possible work for a local MP or council during the summer holidays of a degree. Alternatively, as Anne Alexander did one can take time to work for an MP either between jobs, during a gap year or by saving up in advance to work for free for a few weeks or months. Claire Kober also reminded Young Fabians, that not all political jobs are working for an MP, and suggested that people find a local charity and volunteer as a Trustee. As with being a School Government, supply of these places far exceeds the demand for them and any time volunteered would always be gratefully appreciated by a School or Charity. The demand for places at this event showed a real interest amongst Young Fabians in learning from other Fabians how to find a job that helps demonstrate their political beliefs, and it is possible that the Young Fabians will hold a similar event in our “How to…” series of Parliamentary seminars in the very near future.

anticipations

SCHOOLS PROJECT UPDATE

James Green on the outcome of the national youth consultation

A James Green is the School’s Project Officer of the Young Fabians

s part of this year’s Young Fabians Schools Project a national youth consultation was launched. Students were invited to outline their policy priorities and share their views on what they would do if they were Prime Minister. The consultation proved to be very popular. Nearly 500 sub-

ease spending “I would decr ring peace time on defence du e the money in and redistributfunding to socially the NHS and r city councils to deprived innesources for youths build extra re cially funded and, with finan the problems schools, tackle e young generaoccurring in th tion today.” , Essex Sean, age 17

missions were received from schools up and down the country. Students dealt with a wide range of issues from international development to tackling crime; from environmental policy to the tax system. The project provided young people with the opportunity to share their views about the issues

that matter to them. Here are a few examples:

nis“If I were the Prime Mike ter I would try and ma we more wind turbines sor would get rid of powe plants.” Ella, age 9, London

“First thing I would do is give everybody a home to live in because some people live out in the streets and beg for money and you have to give them money because you feel sorry for them.” Serhart, age 13, Essex

similar me Minister, to use a ca. This “I would propose as Pri Ameri d an nce Fra th bo in system which is used a system of ‘repeated years’ in would be to implementch child must reach the numeracy all primary schools. Ea wn for their age (set down by the and literacy level set dothe end of each year. If this level board of education) at st repeat the year and continue to ch the next is not met, the child mu the expected level to rea do so until they reach year.”

y Nicola, age 16, Surre “As Prime “I would try to reduce the level of alarms in Minister I would p crime by introducing more CCTV a burglar every house so th ut burglar cameras and policemen into towns. ready to cathe people in the at when there is house can ll the poli Also I would give policemen more get ce” flexibility in what they are allowed to Ruby, age 9, London do. Although this may result in tax increases, the citizens of our country will feel assured that they are getting their money’s worth and they are cur the safe from criminals” “I would try to improvea young rent credit crunch. As city London Flora, age 14, Bedford person living in inner a sericrime and deviance is bring with ous thing which I would and help I y th tr you ld ved pro u im o . . rIw incentives. E.g world ons and longer e Ministe n in the centres, rehabilitation was Prim isasters going o urricanes, typhoy I If “ one by h ral d prison sentences. the natuelp countries hit uld help send m o h w I ld . u o rs w r disaste Ethel, age 17, London and othe .” id a and chester 14, Man e g a , “I would id Dav lishment look into the dis “I would provide English teachers to teach children land, as of the Church o estabis no lon in 21st century Bf EngEnglish if they speak a different language because I a state-eger appropriate ritain it believe every child should have a good education no ndorsed to from.” are they where matter religion.” have Charlott e, age 1 7, Sidcup Bashan, age 11, Brent

IN THE NEXT ANTICIPATIONS:

//making poverty history 2.0

> three years on, how can we achieve the millenium development goals both at home and abroad?

email your idea/article to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk by Friday November 14th 2008