Anticipations - Spring 2001 by Young Fabians

Anticipations The Journal of the Young Fabians

The Jim

Scarlet - Purnell Election special Feature on disability Debate - Tactical Voting

Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring 2001 ÂŁ2.50

Contents Fuel Poverty

Editorial More substance than spin - Maria

Chris Watt outlines the challenges ahead for the Government

Fighting the health class war 3

Bell admonishes lessons for Labour’s spin doctors 10

Spectator Sports

Neil Goulbourne and Shivangi Thakore reveal the deeper symptoms of inequality in healthcare

Prema Gurunathan diverts her attention to a possible Tory leadership election

Feature

Interview with James Purnell

Debate

The New Machiavelli

By Joerg Tretow

Politics and Religion

Andrew Inchley puts the case for reinforcing the Labour link with faith communities

What is local culture?

John Houghton sheds light on the issue

British Anti-Capitalism 8 Joe Bord meets the Socialist Alliance

Communitarianism James Connal explains Etzioni’s concept

Q&A with the People’s Fuel Lobby 16 Corduroy Column

View from the House

Letter from Shanghai

Book Review and Letters Page 20 The Scottish Column

Judith Begg argues that Westminster elections are still vital in the new Scotland

Chair’s Column

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, or the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals who prepared it. The reponsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. The Obituary to Donald Dewar in the last issue was written by Johanna Baxter Published by The Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN. Tel: 0207 227 4900 Fax: 0207 976 7153 ISSN 0967-666X Printed by Premier Printers, 20-24 Bow Common Lane, London, E3 4AU Thanks to: Rory, Howard, and Judith Cartoons: Victoria Isherwood

elcome to the Spring issue of Anticipations. This edition we are looking at the election and prospects for the Second Term. James Purnell explains why he is leaving Downing Street after four years to run for Parliament. Maria Bell, Prema Gurunathan, Joe Bord and our new View from the House columnist Ben Leapman of the Evening Standard look at how the battle-lines are being drawn for the election, while Joerg Tretow, Chris Watt and Neil Goulbourne look at some of Labour’s unfinished business. Andrew Inchley explains the role of the Christian Socialist Movement in the Second Term, John Houghton looks at the use of culture in regeneration, while James Connal comes up with some characteristically provocative thoughts on crime prevention. Our regular columns will also, I hope, give you an interesting read. The People’s Fuel Lobby tells Anticipations why they are campaigning to reduce fuel tax in Outside the Tent. The Debate in this issue is between Paul Anderson and Luke Akehurst who outline opposing arguments on tactical voting. Tim Sharp continues his fascinating account of life in China with Letter from Shanghai and Paul Richards rounds up events since the last New Machiavelli. We can’t miss out the ineluctable Greg Rosen whose Corduroy Column peruses the historic link between the trade unions and the Labour Party. Meanwhile I’m sure most of you are gearing up for the general election and working hard to ensure the return of Labour candidates in your local area. In your spare moments please keep your articles, comment and letters rolling in for the Summer issue! Please send contributions to me at jessica_asato@hotmail.com, or to the Fabian Society. HappyCampaigning!

Jessica Asato, Editor

Anticipations Spring 2001

Reducing Inequalities

Fighting Labour’s Cold War Chris Watt doesn’t want to set the world on fire - he just wants to start a flame in your heart!

he fight against fuel poverty has come a long way in the last four years. It may indeed still be alien to many people (it is, in fact, where a household needs to, though may not actually, spend more than 10% of its income to adequately heat the home), but the fact that people are fuel poor is now recognised by Government. Moreover, this Government has supported a backbench Bill to legislate for a strategy to eradicate the problem and we have recently seen the first ever Government fuel poverty strategy. The previous Government did not even recognise the concept. All this is welcome, but Labour must go further. It is all too easy to think that the Government’s support for the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act and the consequent fuel poverty strategy is the battle won. Fuel poverty still affects at least 4.5 million people from across the social spectrum. We must not give up the fight until there is no longer a choice for people to face between eating and heating. The Government has already done good things to combat the problem. One immediate panacea has been the Winter Fuel Allowance. Targeted at the group that are most affected by fuel poverty, this recognises that, for some, to not bring them out of fuel poverty may mean that they do not see another winter. However, some groups, whilst rightly recognising this as an important shortterm measure, which does bring immediate benefit to many of those who need it most, also justifiably argue for a more sustainable solution than just encouraging people to use more energy. This inevitably involves, not just insulating energy inefficient homes, but also, in some cases, demolishing those homes that are beyond help. Whilst this latter solution raises many difficult social questions, the Government is, at least 2

Anticipations Spring 2001

partially addressing the first. Its New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) offers free insulation advice, and grants to those on a range of benefits, to fit anything from draught excluders to brand new central heating systems. Run in partnership with the private sector, New HEES is one of the Government’s sustainable solutions to a difficult, but not insurmountable problem. Like the Warm Homes Act, this is run by the Westminster Government purely across England and Wales. The Scottish Executive also have their own, if anything, more ambitious scheme, and the Northern Ireland Executive have plans in place too. The Winter Fuel Allowances and New HEES are important parts of the Government’s Fuel Poverty Strategy.

This is groundbreaking and welcome, but it is limited in vision. It speaks of eliminating fuel poverty for vulnerable groups within ten years. On the other hand, the Warm Homes Act has legislated to set Government the target of eradicating fuel poverty completely in fifteen. Ministers have publicly endorsed this commitment. It is not impossible for the Government to set its stall out to eliminate fuel poverty completely in ten. All that said, it is, of course, right that the Government concentrates on the most vulnerable. However, the Winter Fuel Allowance was targeted at all pensioner households and not just those on low incomes. Not only did this make it

easier to administer, but it also recognised that it is not just the economically poor who are fuel poor. There are people with very high incomes who are living in fuel poverty because they live in such large buildings that to adequately heat their entire home, it would indeed cost them more than 10% of their income. It would, clearly be ridiculous not to target money at such people and no one is seriously suggesting this. However, it does serve to illustrate that fuel poverty can affect the whole social spectrum. For this reason, the Labour Govern ment should look at the social, rather than the economic groups that are most affected by fuel poverty. The next set of help should be directed at young families. Given the direct correlation between housing, health and education, there can be no justification for young children to be growing up well looked after in every respect, but cold in their own home, because their parents scrimp on the heating to buy other necessities. Extending the Winter Fuel Allowance would cost the Government in the region of £470 million. Yet this money would be saved in the long-term by the savings to the NHS on the cost of treating cold-related illnesses. If Labour is to tackle social exclusion in its second term, it cannot do so without eradicating the scourge of fuel poverty. This is truly a problem which affects the whole of society, and yet which New Labour can target resources on those who need it most in the working and middle classes. If Labour wants to continue to enjoy a warm relationship with the voters, it could do a lot worse than help them to keep their own homes warm.

Chris Watt is a Young Fabian member

Reducing Inequalities Pledges

Off the Critical List Neil Goulbourne and Shivangi Thakore say the NHS is showing signs of recovery but class inequalities remain

here can be little doubt that the NHS is a paradigm of New Labour’s success: financial ‘prudence’ in the first two years of the Parliament made way for an unprecedented growth in spending, coupled with significant but measured reform. In turn, that was packaged into a 10 year NHS plan, thereby delaying public expectation as well as making their promises conditional on another 10 years in power. For the country to vote Labour out before the completion of the all important decade would be to throw away much of the miracle promised in the NHS Plan, something it should be loathe to do. Although a healthcare panacea may not be in store for us by 2010, Labour PPCs at the forthcoming election will be able proudly to reel off dazzling strings of statistics, like the cast list of the latest Hollywood blockbuster: spending increased by a third, 7,500 more consultants, 20,000 extra nurses, 100 new hospitals, to quote just a few. Just how proud they should actually be depends of course on the efficient implementation of the Plan, which we shall have to wait to assess. Though the NHS is an example of the Government’s success, health and health care are key examples of failure by more than a century of the Labour Movement. In 1839, Chadwick, the famed Victorian medic, described the average death rate of Bethnal Green residents: ‘Gentlemen and persons engaged in professions and their families…45 years; tradesmen and their families…26 years; mechanics, servants and labourers and their families…16 years.’ Of course, today’s figures would show a drastic improvement from that tragic state but the class inequality demonstrated by Chadwick is stubbornly persistent in all areas of health. Today, life expectancy for a child with parents who are unskilled manual workers is over seven years shorter than for a child born to Class I professionals.

Manual workers suffer premature death rates 44% higher than non-manual workers. And such differences begin even from the womb, with miscarriage being more common in lower socioeconomic groups. Similarly illness, or ‘morbidity’ increases by several factors if one descends the class ladder. The landmark Black Report of 1980 and the bulk of subsequent research agree that the relationship between class and health is a causal one, with class shaping health rather than food or bad health generating class stratification. This causal link is made in two ways. First, people from lower social classes tend to behave in ways detrimental to their health. Smoking, for example, is much more common amongst lower socio-economic groups. Half of single parents and three quarters of couples on income support spend one fifth of their disposable income support on cigarettes. A similarly class dependent pattern emerges for alcohol consumption, leisure activities, diet and for the uptake of preventative medicine. Second, poorer people’s health is damaged by circumstances beyond their control. Their houses are more likely to be damp, cold and polluted by car fumes from the main road outside. In the workplace, conditions are physically more exhausting and workers are more exposed to hazards than in the professional or managerial office. Low social class is also associated with low pay which may not stretch to frequent visits to the gym or even a healthy diet. A National Health Service, free at the point of delivery and paid for by progressive taxation, should have been a relatively effective counterweight to these trends. Unfortunately inequality has continued to exist in both medical and preventative care in the NHS. For example in GP and hospital treatment, for each person reporting an illness, 40% more is spent on the top socioeconomic group than the bottom. Such

a stunning imbalance arises out of the high prevalence of GPs in more affluent areas, the greater ability for Class I patients to take time off work for appointments and the greater likelihood of such people being referred to a specialist. Similarly services such as contraception, immunisation and ante-natal sureveillance are much less likely to be taken up by manual/unskilled workers and their families. From both of these elements, therefore, poorer people have had a comparatively bad deal. The paradox is clear: what was to be a force for equalisation of health, in practice perpetuated longstanding class inequalities. Thus the barrage of measures in the NHS Plan targeted at righting this historic wrong must be welcomed by all possessed of a social conscience. For the first time, there will be a national health inequalities target, and funds devoted to its achievement. And also for the first time, preventative measures take the lion’s share of the limelight. In tackling health inequality, this is crucial because medical treatment is only rarely a cure for illness, so can never be a remedy for the high incidence of ill-health in poorer communities. New screening programmes, the abolition of child poverty, working condition improvements, free fruit for infants and wellfunded smoking-cessation services will all go a long way. On the curative side, GP contracts are being reworked to reward work in areas of need rather than vice versa. So, a big round of applause for Labour. Making the commitment to change, putting enough investment in and developing the right framework are a fine start, but they are only that. Fleshing out the details and implementing them fully will be the next test of this Government’s determination to iron out class inequalities in health.

Neil Goulbourne and Shivangi Thakore are 5th Year London Medical Students Anticipations Spring 2001

Feature

Long Road to Equality An investigation by Joerg Tretow reveals the inequalities still suffered by disabled students in the UK

t a first glance one would not think that this room is somehow different. Piles of books and papers are scattered around, two computers are at hand and two students are busy working. But if one starts to look, or maybe better to listen more carefully the situation takes a twist. One of the computers makes an announcement in an electronic voice: “Jaws is ready for windows.” It has voice output and is specially equipped for blind and visually impaired students. The person sitting at this computer switches on another device next to the computer, a scanner, and page by page he starts to scan a book. The library of Queen Mary College is equipped with devices for students who have a sight problem. The university has a reputation within the University of London for encouraging disabled students to apply and for providing facilities necessary for equal access. But how much of this image lives up to the expectations and needs of the disabled and does it signal a trend concerning higher education as a whole in the UK? Paul Margan Paul is a postgraduate student at Queen Mary and he is blind. He is one of those students who have pioneered and paved the way to bring more access to blind people in education. But for him there is not enough to be proud of: “We have achieved a great deal but for postgraduates there is no achievement to be proud of yet. It seems to me that having a degree is the end of the road. They still think blind people can’t do it”. The main obstacle preventing disabled students from continuing education is the lack of financial encouragement. Paul has difficulties understanding why the Disabled Students Allowance has not been made available to postgrads. He acknowledges that progress has 4

Anticipations Spring 2001

been made at this college particularly for undergraduate blind students, but he refuses to be complacent. The mood in the library is hectic when a bell starts to ring frantically at the enquiry desk. The librarian is occupied and you can see her struggling to leave the crowd of students demanding attention. Across the other side of the library a man sits frustrated in a wheelchair “It’s the same every time” he moans. He spends most of his time simply waiting for someone to open the door for him. A situation which everyone would find somewhat humiliating. For him, a daily challenge! Eileen Nazha, the main librarian, concedes that independent access to the library is not possible yet. But at least moving safely within the library is no longer a problem. This is what Paul calls the culture of talking; “We are in a country which one talks about disability extremely well. But we find it very difficult to actually do anything to improve the situation”. He just does not understand why someone who is blind needs to be called ‘a person with special needs’. “The problem with too much political correctness is that one does not focus on the problems and gaps which still remain. We blur our minds collectively”. There are still a lot of problems for Paul, for instance it is still difficult for him to take his guide dog on a train or on an airplane. But he also points out encouraging changes: “Today no one can hinder me from visiting a restaurant with my guide dog, whereas some years ago they could and sometimes did”. This is due to the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995. But Paul wonders why trains and airplanes were not included in this scheme. He calls the DDA a “teethless tiger”. Valery Morgen Valery Morgen began as a welfare

officer and became involved in projects focusing on dyslexic students. After the DDA had its impact and a disability coordinator became a full time job for some universities her passion and knowledge was needed. 13% of all people living in the UK are somehow disabled. But only 5% among students have a handicap according to statistics published by the DFEE. In terms of numbers alone, disabled people are still hugely disadvantaged. The first group of disabled students for whom more help was made available were dyslexic students, the majority of disabled students at British universities. But after 1995 it was obvious that, at least in a long term perspective, provisions for other disabilities had to be made.I asked Valery her response to objections that the DDA had actually excluded education, unlike in many other Commonwealth countries. Morgen takes a deep breath and starts to go into the matter: “First of all it is not justifiable that education was excluded and it was more than sad to find out that a lot of people within the management of universities were actually quite pleased about that. Certainly lobbying from the academic sector had its impact!” But Morgen explains that the passage of this law signalled a cultural shift. Before the law was passed disabled students were accepted but in most cases no provisions were being made. After this law it was difficult to maintain this attitude. The DFEE set out a code of practice which is supposed to be a guide for universities in how to improve facilities for the disabled. But it also prevented universities from excusing no provisions at all by pointing to a lack of knowledge. The present government has insisted that this code of practice will become legally enforceable in 2003 or 2004. It must be expressed firmly, however, that

Feature at the moment it is still legal to reject a disabled person admission to a university by making it clear that no provisions can be made for them. So why has this so often promised law, which would include education in the DDA, not yet been passed? I put this question directly to David Blunkett. He explained that the law is pending in the house of Lords: “I am desperately keen to get it through before the next general election”. So why was this law introduced in the House of Lords and not, as it works in most cases, in the House of Commons in the first place? According to disability rights activists from SKILL, a organisation lobbying for disabled people in education, this is a strategy of the government to prevent this law from succeeding. At the moment this law has already undergone four sessions within the committee, one more than expected by the government. Morgen once again insists: “Making provisions for the disabled is in the own interest of the university especially in a long term perspective. The more the perception of disability changes, the more success we will have in our permanent struggle for equality”. Pat Costall It is almost 3 PM in the afternoon and Pat Costall has just finished talking to one of her clients. She gives advice to all students who have a disability, in this case a student suffering from dyslexia. The student waits while Pat tries to find a tape recorder. Though she is disabled she is not just receiving help she is also prepared to give it back by reading on tape for blind and visually impaired students. Pat Costall is a learning development officer for students with disability. She assigns campus support workers to all disabled students to help them in many ways depending upon their disability and their personality; “Our message is to focus not only on the disability a person may have but on their personality as a whole. Every single person I have met coped differently with their disability”. This is what makes the project so unique. At the moment it is funded by

the Higher Education Funding Council for England, but unfortunately funding is only being given until December 2002 and we are not sure yet whether the project is to be continued after this date. For Pat a positive outcome depends upon two factors: “Students must engage in it and I mean disabled students and non-disabled students alike. The staff of the college also need to be more aware of the needs of disabled students and to encourage them to contribute to the project.” The message is clear and Pat agrees HEFCE is a springboard to enable universities to get things off the ground. But in the end universities have to set their own priorities. Omar Fatai Omar Fatai, is the most severly disabled person studying at Queen Mary at the moment. He suffers from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy which

permanently weakens his muscles. At the moment his disease cannot be healed but for him this is no reason to give up. He was 9 years old when it began to take its toll. He fell down in a strong gust of wind and his way of walking became, as he puts it, “funny”. Living in Ghana, no appropriate treatment was available and doctors recommended that he would be better off in England. Omar moved to an English school for disabled people and later he joined a normal school. When he was only 15 years old he dreamt of setting up his own band and tried to turn his dream into reality. But while talking about it his voice turns bitter; “I published an advertisement in the paper and even made appointments. But of course I had to tell people about my disability in advance. Immediately their attitude

changed. They would not say anything but they did not need to because I found out myself. No one would turn up for the appointment”. But even all these experiences were no reason for self-pity. One of his greatest moments came when he wrote an essay on why ethnic minorities should be a part of the BBC and he was awarded an internship. For a moment, just a moment, his disability was forgotten; “I had the impression that my talents were really needed”. Omar gained successful A-levels and he wanted to continue on studying, but it would be exaggerated to say that he had a free choice. “I was very determined to go to Kings college and my grades would have been good enough. But I could not because Kings did not offer the have the facilities I would need to complete a degree successfully”. The final decision was Queen Mary but Omar puts it frankly: “The department of engineering was very reluctant to offer me a place in the beginning and it took some effort to convince them.” Omar has become bitter about his choice to keep on studying; “I do not like it! I am very thankful for the help I get from the campus support team. But there are still so many obstacles I have to overcome and I am permenantly stuck”. A lot of the problem rests with the students themselves: “There is a lot of ignorance around, I always thought that people coming to university would be socially educated”. Omar may have left his country for better treatment but the wind he was so afraid of as a child has not gone away and beats him once again. I leave him, a person marked by the permanent struggle of trying not to crumble in the wind. One may be tempted to recall the words of Valery Morgen: “We are on the right track but we are talking here in terms of generations”. But Omar still dreams about having his own band and company and he can not wait for generations.

Joerg Tretow is a blind student at QMW and a Young Fabian Anticipations Spring 2001

Interview Faith & Politics

Faith in the Future Andrew Inchley sets out the role the Christian Socialist Movement could play in a second term

or its adherents, Christian Socialism is an immediate consequence of a desire to see their faith deliver benefit to today’s society. It is not merely an ethical socialism, but resonates with values firmly rooted in biblical principles of compassion and justice. It is these values that inspired many of those who first formed the Labour Party. Indeed, the social and moral responsibility felt by many Christians to be a core part of their faith has led to a rich history of active involvement in the Labour Party movement. Stephen Timms, a member of the Christian Socialist Movement, recently wrote that “for our core values, the Labour Party owes a much bigger debt to Christian influences than we do to anything else.” In his book, “God’s Politicians”, Graham Dale follows this theme through the hundred year history of the Labour Party, exploring the faith behind the activities of key figures in the Party’s history. Dale cites Kier Hardie quoting Christ: “in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you”, and it is encouraging to see John Smith, writing nearly one hundred years later, “The second commandment calls upon us to love our neighbours as ourselves… I do not believe we can truly follow that great commandment unless we have a concept of care and concern for our fellow citizens which is reflected in the organisation of our society.” These values are as relevant today as they were at the start of the last century. With an increasing divide between the richest and poorest members of society, it is all the more important to assert our commitment to equality – that all are created equal in God’s sight. The Christian Socialist Movement (CSM) was established in 1960 by Donald Soper, among others, drawing 6

Anticipations Spring 2001

together a number of earlier groups with these traditions. At its core is a belief that Christian teaching should be reflected in social laws and institutions, and that socialist policies are implicit in achieving this. It now numbers more than 2000 members, including many sitting MPs. David Haslam, the chair of CSM, summarized the movement’s aims under four headings, “peace and reconciliation, redistribution, the environment and common ownership, and equality and a classless society”. He went on to say: “we want a world where the belief that all are equal in God’s sight is put into practice. That requires a degree of sharing and redistribution considerably greater than at present exists. This is why motivation by faith is necessary. People are more likely to practise equality if they believe that all humanity is of equal worth”. Fundamental to such practice is the recognition that we do not exist in a vacuum, that we are more than just individuals, that we are a part of and exist within society. As we look forward to new policies for this century, we can take encouragement from the fact that governments are looking towards faith communities to play an increasing part in policy development and implementation. Far from a failure of the state, this is a recognition that by involving such groups, government can tap into a commitment and energy for social activity that means policy is more inclusive, better supported and of greater relevance across the community. For the left, this is not an abdication of responsibility, but the consequence of a genuine desire to eliminate social exclusion. The fruitful collaboration between this Government and the Jubilee 2000 coalition is just one example of how such a dia-

logue can deliver substantive change in policy. Drawing upon another example, Gordon Brown’s stated aim to eradicate child poverty within a generation has been described by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks as “very important and… inspirational to society”. Over the last 6 months, CSM has undertaken a research project looking at the priorities different faith groups’ have for the next Parliament. The results were presented at a recent one day seminar at which Tony Blair was the keynote speaker. There was a genuine desire to engage in political debate - as noted in the report: “for most worshipping people there is no clear line at which faith action ends and political action begins. Politics is an expression of faith and as a result almost all faith communities encourage their members to vote and to develop political understanding.” The Government has made a big step forward in recognising the contribution that such communities have to make. The challenge for the next session will be to integrate these objectives into the Government’s programme in a practical fashion. Fundamentally, politics is about compromise. Faith, on the other hand, is about absolutes. If this Labour Government can solve this apparent paradox, then it will be able to powerfully engage with a broad section of the community at a far more meaningful level than is achieved with the soundbites so prevalent during campaigns in recent years. Andrew Inchley is an Executive member of the CSM and is the Labour PPC for South-East Cambridgeshire. For more information about the Christian Socialist Movement, call 020 7233 3736, or email info@christiansocialist.org.uk

Culture & Politics

Arts about face John Houghton argues that culture should be central to urban regeneration, not just an add-on.

nderstanding and utilising the cultural contexts in which their policies are developed and delivered should be a priority for local decision-makers. In reality, however, there is a widespread reluctance to examine the cultural implications of modern political and social problems; and a failure to see culture as part of the solution. Many accept that cultural sensitivity is a genuine issue, but see it is as secondary to getting to grips with ‘real problems’. For others on the Left, culture is not a ‘bread and butter’ issue, and this dubious distinction is used to discard issues that do not fit easily into discrete and familiar political categories. The misperception common to both these attitudes is that culture is a fringe issue; a frilly add-on to the real business of government. I want to argue here that, in contrast to this approach, the relevance and profound importance of cultural considerations to a wide range of policies needs to be fully appreciated. In their oblivion to cultural issues, decision-makers such as councillors, planners, and educators only contribute to the deepening alienation between people and their political representatives. There is a myopic failing to gear policies toward exploiting the rich potential of cultural assets and take account of local strengths and sensitivities. An holistic awareness of the cultural elements of modern governance is needed urgently. For example, the use of multicultural or cross-generation education in tackling youth disaffection; the role of creative industries in urban regeneration; multicultural policing; the value of tradition in the knowledge economy; the involvement of residents in town planning. Underlying this reluctance to engage in cultural issues is the nebulous ambiguity of the term itself. It is difficult to find a common ground on which to begin a discussion about ‘culture’. To

attempt some clarity here, ‘local culture’ is used to refer to the distinctive set of values, aspirations, habits and assumptions shared by members of a community. There are encouraging signs that central government is awakening to the role of culture in governance. DCMS is encouraging local authorities to develop “Local Cultural Strategies [that] will help local authorities to express their own cultural visions and priorities in response to the needs and aspirations of local communities, recognising the role of cultural services in tackling the wider objectives of social inclusion, regeneration, lifelong learning and healthier and safer communities.”

This recognition needs to be mainstreamed at local and national level to avoid becoming another well-intentioned but ineffectual initiative. It must also be shared across the whole range of organisations and agencies engaged in modern local government. The government’s long-term agenda of unleashing our national potential demands an acute sensitivity to cultural issues. If we want to nurture a revitalised British citizenry in which communities are empowered to determine their own future and our political structures are enmeshed and engaged in civil society, then we must put culture at the heart of decision making. Devolution and the wider agenda of revitalising community politics through

neighbourhood based policies and localised decision making structures, enable communities to play an important part in deciding their future. As part of this process, conventional decisionmakers are being driven closer and made more accountable to the communities they govern. This can only be done successfully if it is complimented by an appreciation of the impact of policies upon the diversity of groups affected. Alongside strategies to rejuvenate our urban space and the built environment, there is a drive to skill-up and invest in people. ‘Capacity building’ in our citizens is one of the most exciting and innovative elements of the government urban renewal agenda. Culture is a resource that enriches the lives of all of us that, with the right enabling structures can be unleashed, to the benefit of individual and community. Precisely because culture has been relegated by decision-makers, local infrastructures do not meet the needs of the groups at which they are targeted. A policy to tackle social exclusion developed in a cultural vacuum is doomed. People find themselves trapped in degrading cycles because the ‘ladders of opportunity’ designed to help - such as training and adult education schemes have been engineered in ignorance of the actual needs and opinions of the local community. There is a real need to equip decisionmakers, through initiatives like the Culture and Urban Development Commission, with an acute awareness of the cultural resources and opportunities that exist in our communities. In the words of Charles Landry, author of The Creative City, ‘development is only possible where it works with the values of those affected.’

John Houghton is Campaigns Officer for Lewisham Deptford CLP and a Young Labour activist Anticipations Spring 2001

Second Term Thinking Capitalism

Suburban Subversives Joe Bord meets the Socialist Alliance

n a dark evening recently, an American friend and I trekked out to the inner suburbs of an East Anglian town to hear what the Socialist Alliance had to say. A score of people were gathered in a chilly hall, some obviously hardened activists, but others ordinary residents: hospital workers, teachers, a man from a local housing project. Although my Democrat friend remained scrupulously polite, she was furious when we stepped outside. These people, she observed, are gambling the livelihoods of people even weaker than themselves. These self-proclaimed socialists are no better than the Naderites - their function can only be to split the vote and let the Right triumph. The bitterness and closeness of the American Presidential election gave added bite to the old adage: do not refuse half a loaf if the whole is not offered, because the half loaf is not yours to refuse. Of course, New Labour does not believe that its policies are starvation rations. We brandish tax credits for working families; increased child benefit; the minimum wage, and claimant unemployment below a million. We are not, we insist, the same as the Tories. But for every person who turns to a leftwing splinter party, many more will not bother to vote at all. The Socialist Alliance seeks to capitalise on this alienation from the mainstream party struggle. It is therefore important to understand the negative aspect of their arguments, before going on to consider the more fundamental challenge to Blairism from the anti-capitalist movement. They are not the same as us. This was the chief emotional charge: the distance of the Blairs, Mandelson, Robinson, Keith Vaz, Lord Sainsbury and the rest. How can the New Labour leaders, earning hundreds of thousands, understand what it is to get by? The Socialist candidate pledges that he will only take the

Anticipations Spring 2001

average wage of his constituents if elected. Meanwhile, who privatised air traffic control? Who is selling off local education authorities? Who is spending less, proportionately, on public services than John Major? The New Labour Tory Party. A young woman speaks up, and declares that stranded at a station the other day, she had shouted in frustration; ‘I’m so fucked off, I want to renationalise the railways!’ According to her, the people on the platform, also stranded, had clapped and cheered. The ensuing discussion had little of the usual far-left doctrinal wrangling. People complain that there aren’t enough affordable council houses, and that land has been set aside by the council for executive homes instead. Class sizes are too big in the neighbourhood junior school, and the assisted places scheme is still operating under different guises. In short, there is a hankering for real Labour policies, at the same time as the Labour party is denounced as the hijacked vehicle of a privileged stratum. But this is not the whole story. During the meeting, various campaigns are publicised. These include demonstrations against the imprisonment of asylumseekers, and against the GATS commerce talks. The chair reports that pickets have already been mounted against McDonalds and Gap in town. There is international solidarity in the air: not the old fraternity of labour, but a new coalition of dissident oppositionist fragments. Not once do I hear the word ‘Comrade’ - it is unnecessary, and has been superseded. The implications need to be confronted. Even though the anticapitalist edge is scarcely shared by most of the apathetic constituency, it still reflects a basic challenge that goes beyond the immediate election, and out into the agenda-setting network of activist campaigns and radical culture. The first thing to notice is that in the

eyes of the anti-capitalists, New Labour has bankrupted modernisation as a language of progress. New technology belongs to the establishment: genes to Monsanto, computers to Microsoft. The rhetoric and bombast of the 'Third Way' has destroyed a dissident sense of socialism as a path into the future. Mr. Blair has succeeded only too well in defining his ‘forces of conservatism’. To be a socialist today, and to be against Mr. Blair, is to be against global trade and investment, economies of scale, and against the industries of the twentyfirst century. This is related of course to the deeper failure of the left to outline an alternative way of running modernity. It is striking that the Socialist Alliance campaigns practically on a rather modest programme of welfarism. Meanwhile, romanticism, localism and hostility to production have taken over the anti-capitalist world view. Clearly, this observation can be qualified with respect to particular elements within the messy anti-globalist coalition. But it is a fair description of the emphasis of contemporary leftwingery, and it leaves the remnants of progressive, scientific socialism with a dilemma. In dispassionate Marxist terms, those of us who want to defend the new forces of production have been stuck with endorsing its mode, dominated by neoliberal financial institutions and transnational corporations. This is precisely the Blairite intention, and so far it has worked.

Jo Bord is a Young Fabian

Communitarianism

Guilt Edged James Connal raises some controversial solutions to the problems of youth crime

ommunitarianism, a political movement that has gained ground in the United States, has provided inspiration for Tony Blair and Jack Straw as they have sought to revitalise Labour’s Crime and Justice Agenda. In this article I will explain who the Communitarians are, what they believe in, whether their policies work and how their ideas could be taken forward in the Second Term. The most famous Communitarian is Amitai Etzioni, an academic and former adviser to Bill Clinton, who has helped set up the Communitarian movement, which calls for “the restoration of civic values, for people to live up to their responsibilities and not merely focus on their entitlements, and to shore up the moral foundations of society”. Communitarians see the root of our society’s problems in the excessive liberalism of the 1960s, from which we have never recovered. They believe that communities have a “moral voice” which exerts itself by shaming criminals and blessing law abiding citizens. They argue for the importance of the bringing up children in a loving marriage, for schools to give moral guidance to pupils, for more community policing, improved interaction between neighbours through citizens watches and patrols, and more community justice sentences. They see only one alternative to their proposals a moral vacuum or a drift to an authoritarian police state. Far more important than looking at what Communitarians say is whether their solutions actually work. Communitarians point to Japan as the best example of a society where the community’s moral voice is used to reduce crime. In Japan there is great shame in being convicted as a criminal, and offenders are expected to apologise for their misdeeds, but are then re-integrated into society. Japan is the only developed country to have maintained low crime rates since the Second World War.

Communitarian schemes that have worked in reducing crime in the US and UK, such as the Balsall Heath Project in Birmingham, appear to only work when communities act together. The tougher question is whether they can work in areas where there is no defined community to work with. Communitarianism has had an increasing impact on Labour’s policies in recent years. Jack Straw has admitted that for many years “Labour did not say much about either law or order”, with the 1992 Manifesto containing just four paragraphs on crime and nothing on dealing effectively with offenders! Studies in the 1980s highlighted the fact that the biggest victims of crime were Labour’s core supporters in deprived areas and they switched to the Tories because they felt they were the only ones prepared to do anything about disorder. In opposition, Tony Blair built a consensus around toughness on both crime and causes of crime, and in government, he has put community at the heart of Labour’s agenda. Jack Straw has openly embraced Communitarianism, rejecting the “walk on by society”, and setting up an Active Community Unit to support voluntary activity as a way of restoring “a sense of citizenship that is often missing from our communities today.” Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Parenting Orders, child curfew proposals, and the emphasis on restorative justice, all have a Communitarian stamp upon them. The main criticism of Communita riansim comes from those on the Left. They suggest Communitarianism is nostalgic, undesirable, encourages the forces of social exclusion, and misunderstands modern society. Many of the criticisms appear to hinge on the definition of community. If we define Communitarian values as building blocks for restoring social stability, rather than as a return to yesteryear, and

if we support their ideas with sufficient economic resources, they may offer a way of seriously reducing crime, not only in the suburbs, but in the most deprived parts of our country, where a return to community is needed most. Straw has been scathing in his condemnation of these critics, arguing that “under the cloak of liberalism, though I think it is woolly-minded liberalism, they take no account of the situation of those who are less favoured than they.” It is interesting to note that many of Straw’s staunchest critics reside in Oxbridge colleges - perhaps the best example of the type of gated community that they spend so long condemning! If Labour are to embrace Communitarianism further, what policies could be adopted for a Second Term? Etzioni raises a number of ideas, which are controversial, but are worth consideration including extension of curfews for young people and the introduction of ID cards. However, I think his most promising idea is the return of compulsory one year National Service for school leavers. This could be taken in charities, public services (such as the Police, local hospitals or schools) or the Armed Forces. The scheme would prevent youngsters drifting out of school into unemployment or possibly crime, would help ease pressure on public services, and could improve recruitment into them if young people have a worthwhile experience. National Service would also acts as a great sociological mixer, bringing youngsters from different backgrounds together for a common purpose. The financial costs to the Exchequer would be formidable, and care would have to be taken not to displace those already in employment, but this could be a popular policy, that would help make Britain a better place.

James Connal has recently completed an M.Phil in Criminology from Cambridge University. Anticipations Spring 2001

Memo Labour’s core message

All spun out Maria Bell examines why Labour’s message has failed to get across

abour appears to be cruising to victory in the General Election, but there are some serious problems on the horizon. As supporters we don’t need to be reminded about how much the government has done. Unfortunately we are the only ones who know. For a Government so attacked for its investment in image and press management, it is incredible that Labour’s greatest failure has been its own public relations. The party fought to banish the ghosts of the 1970’s and early 80’s in the run up to the last election campaign - it took us 18 years to get to a position where the electorate trusted us again. Labour was sold to the country as a more compassionate, but not more radical party than the Conservatives. We spent so long saying that we were not “Old Labour” and not the Tories, that we forgot to define in the public’s mind what “New Labour” stood for. Another problem was that after 1997, the massive changes which Labour pushed through were achieved with little or no opposition. The utility companies would never pay the £3 billion windfall levy, they said. They were right - they paid £5 billion. Devolution and reform of the House of Lords were expected to bog down the House of Commons for months - in reality the process was breathtakingly swift. The Tories have singularly failed to inflict any serious damage on Labour during the last four years while they have fallen even further in the eyes of the public. We were so busy driving through change that we forgot to tell people when we met our pledges. Criticism from the left that the party has sold out its principles adds to the public idea that Labour hasn’t done very much. Over the past four years the party should have been confident enough to celebrate all the radical things it has achieved.

Anticipations Spring 2001

Instead members and voters have been left to find out what is going on from the media - often delivered with a negative spin. How often have we heard our own members talk about Gordon Brown’s “massive £16 bn surplus”, “Cronyism”, “Spin not substance”, “Stealth Taxes” or the “Privatisation of Air Traffic Control” - all of which are the soundbites of our opponents. This Government has been the most radical in history. If you don’t believe me try this test: imagine yourself in 1992 after the Conservatives’ fourth election victory in a row. A time traveller comes to see you and says: “Don’t worry, within five years we’ll have a

Labour Government with a majority of 179.” Then he goes on: “And this Government will devolve power to Scotland, Wales, London and Northern Ireland, ban all handguns, landmines and cosmetic testing on animals, introduce a Human Rights Act, reform the House of Lords, introduce the minimum wage, implement the largest ever hospital building programme, the largest ever investment in transport and the largest ever investment in education. At the same time it will keep inflation and interest rates to the lowest in decades, take a million children out of poverty, cut income tax and cut unemployment to the lowest in 25 years.” You’d never have believed all that was possible within 4 years of a Labour Government being elected - but we’ve

done it. The impression that we aren’t apparently doing much has made the kind of scandal which Harold Macmillan referred to as “events, dear boy, events” much more damaging. Whether it involves Harriet Harman, Peter Mandelson or Keith Vaz these events should have been contained but instead the press hammered us. In the absence of fights over policy, the media has had to find conflict between personalities. This has created a problem for Labour at the election. Many of those who switched to Labour from Conservative at the last election do not think much has changed. By convincing them we were the equivalent of ‘Tory Lite’, Labour has in effect persuaded them there is no reason not to go back to ‘Classic Tory’. Even worse than this is the fact that our core vote don’t think the government has really promoted their interests either and many will stay at home. However, the real problem will be at the election after next - with the message of the first term failing to get across, we will have an even harder time selling the messages of the second term. With our voters disappointed and the Conservatives sorting themselves out, a third term might become an impossible dream. Now we’re in campaign mode, Labour is finally starting to get some messages across to the electorate. We have got to make sure we learn the lesson and keep up this communication. It would be a supreme irony if the Government accused of “spin over substance” lost power because it failed to communicate what it really had achieved.

Maria Bell is on the YF Exec and is standing as a local Councillor in Cambridge

The other election

Spectator Sports Prema Gurunathan talks us through the fun and games of the post-election battle

s George Eliot once wrote ‘An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry’. Quite simply put, pigs fly at election time (thereby escaping the foxes). And whilst activists are inspired by the ability of their leaders to achieve such miracles, much of the electorate remains comatose. Labour Party strategists will despair but if politics is no more than a spectator sport to most people, why wait up late to view a foregone conclusion? Instead, conserve your energy for a bloodier battle to come: this year’s Conservative Party leadership election. Although their Leader appears already to be running a campaign to keep the leadership, the Tories are sharpening their knives. Perhaps this time round, they will use the common sense they keep talking about to elect a more promising candidate. Plotters in every faction, having given up hope of winning the coming General Election, are turning their attentions to their internal opponents. In a recent interview with the Daily Telegraph, William Hague stressed the unity of the Conservative party. Yet in the same week, The Guardian carried a piece on how Hague had almost quit being leader a year ago, in the face of poor polls and several high level defections to Labour. Even if one was to take such stories with a hefty pinch of salt, an optimist would still have to admit that with the current standing of the Conservatives in the polls, a Labour majority of less than 100, widely regarded as the target for Hague to claim to have made a significant ‘dent’ in the government’s majority, looks unlikely. Assuming that Hague faces a chal-

lenge, who then are the likely contenders? Portillo is the most commonly mentioned one. But he faces heavy opposition not only for admitting to having had homosexual relationships whilst at Cambridge but also for turning his back on more traditional Tory values. The Conservative party’s blue rinse brigade (i.e. the little old ladies) will oppose him due to his past sexual ‘deviance’. Free-marketeers and more hard-line Tories will abandon him on the grounds that he no longer champions the same values as they do, although at the Tory party conference in March

he appeared to shift back to the right. Mrs. Thatcher has already called Portillo ‘confused’, and her dis-endorsement of a former protégé is a sure sign of things to come. I suspect that despite his history, the Labour party will breathe a sigh of relief should Portillo not succeed Hague. Indeed, of all the possible contenders mentioned above, Portillo is seen as the most ‘normal’. Ann Widdecombe may be the party’s darling, the equivalent of Labour’s Mo Mowlam but her authoritarian streak could be her undoing. The Libertarian wing of the Conservative party is not as strong as it was in Thatcher’s day but it remains as powerful. Francis Maude lacks dispatch box oomph: in his time as Shadow

Chancellor he put in a series of uninspiring performances against Gordon Brown. Iain Duncan Smith is being backed by those on the Conservative right who wish to depose of an effete Hague. Duncan Smith has a conservative outlook on social policy, and is an open Eurosceptic who would like to re-negotiate the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Nice. Perennial contender Michael Heseltine is giving up his seat, whilst former Chancellor Kenneth Clarke is unlikely to waste his time, knowing well that he will face hostility to his proEuropean beliefs. Another name which recently popped up in the papers once again is that of Malcolm Rifkind, who was ousted from his Scottish seat in 1997. Electing a blast from a past will indicate just how much the Tories rely on their elderly “big beasts”, a point which Labour will gleefully drive home. Whoever emerges as the next leader of the Conservative party will face the same task of truly rebuilding electoral support. This task will appear less daunting than that which faced Hague in May 1997, given the likelihood of a slimmer Labour majority. In addition, four years in political wilderness will have conditioned the Tories and may see them shape up into a more effective opposition. I believe that this leadership election is where the bloodiest action will take place: back-stabbing, name-calling and playground antics most of us have long left behind. In the meantime, you might wish to use the General Election to catch some shuteye so you’ll be wide awake for the subsequent Big Kill.

Prema Gurunathan is a Young Fabian at the LSE. Anticipations Spring 2001

Interview

Out of the Frying Pan . . . Jessica Asato asks James Purnell about Liz Davies, if Tony’s a good boss and why he has decided to give up his job at Number 10 to become a backbench MP. Jessica Asato: Why did you join the Party and get involved in politics? James Purnell: I was born into the Labour Party. Both my grandparents were very active Party and Trade Union members, and my mum used to take me canvassing in my pram. I always remember talking about politics round the dinner table while I was growing up. I went to Oxford and in retrospect I wish I’d realised what a privilege it was to spend 3 years reading books. I think being there shaped a lot of my political views. In my second year of University I didn’t have much to do, so I wrote to all the Shadow Cabinet asking whether I could go and volunteer for them. I got an offer from Tony Blair who was Shadow Employment at the time and volunteered for him for the Summer. I went back to work for him after I finished my finals and worked for him until the 1992 election, so that was really my start in politics. I’ve always been convinced about the importance politics played in changing people’s lives. For example when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 me and a bunch of friends flew over to be there for three days to talk to people. When you spoke to young people in East Berlin they wanted to keep all the good things of the East. They liked the fact that there was job security and if you had a child you’d be provided with decent housing. It was a society built on full employment and based in theory on strong equality, but on the other hand you could see when you walked around how bankrupt society was and how destroying it was for the human soul. The challenge for me has always been how you can create a society where people can make the most of themselves, 12

Anticipations Spring 2001

while also realising that you can’t do it against the grain of the market. JA: What was Number 10 like? JP: You’d have to pinch yourself walking through that door every day to remind yourself of what an incredible privilege it was to be there and see the beginnings of a Labour Government. On the other hand it became just like any other office. Apart from the ceremonial rooms the offices themselves are fairly rudimentary; most of it’s like a civil service building, with great big fil-

ing cabinets with huge padlocks on them, computers which don’t work, and desks which seem to be taken out of second hand stores. The staff are incredibly down to earth, there’s a very strong family atmosphere and we look out for each other. Tony Blair is a great boss, he’s very supportive and unpretentious. You can say anything you want to him; if you think he’s making a mistake you can say so quite happily and he’ll take that and tell you if he disagrees, but he’s without any of the airs and graces which you’d expect a PM to have, and that sets the tone for the whole building. People are very open with each other. The great thing about being in the policy unit is that he was interested in work

on policy and how we can make progress in each area, so it made the challenge of working in the policy unit very pleasant. JA: Why did you make the change from being in policy to wanting to be a politician? JP: I thought that it was important because increasingly there is a danger that young people get disconnected from politics and lose faith in it, which makes it imperitive that my generation go into Parliament and put our money where our mouth is. Politics does affect people’s lives, whether it’s things like the Berlin Wall coming down, or the New Deal, or the Working Families Tax Credit. Granted a lot of it is really boring but if young people don’t go into politics it will lose its importance. Becoming a backbench MP is just as much if not more of a privilege than working in the Number 10 Policy Unit. Representing people, trying to help people with their problems, and trying to see how you can help a local area gives you a legitimacy which isn’t found anywhere else. As a councillor I really enjoyed directly helping people who came to my surgeries. If you work hard in your area as an MP you are one of the most influential people in that area which means you can get a lot done. Because I’m only 31 it means that I’m in no rush and that I’ve got plenty of time to learn about how Parliament works. JA: What have been the Government’s main achievements in the areas you have specialised in during your time in the Policy Unit? JP: I’m very proud of what the Government has done for the arts, something that very few people know about. At the last spending review, they

Interview asked for an extra £100 million of spending money, and they got it. Tony Blair himself is very passionate about the importance of a proper arts policy and I’m also proud of the fact that we’ve done it in a way which is going to widen access for everyone. Everyone should have the chance to appreciate and participate in the arts. I’m proud of the work we have done on the BBC, the Government has been very brave and given them a long term platform for developing new services and investing in their radio and TV services. The way we’re wiring up schools is another important example of this Government’s success. When we came into power fewer than 1 in 5 schools was connected to the internet. By next year, all of them will be. On sport there’s now nearly £1 billion going into school playing fields. Under the Tories at one stage they were selling off about 40 playing fields a month. JA: What is Stalybridge and Hyde like as a constituency? JP: It’s a fantastic area because it’s got a mixture of everything. It’s on the foothills of the Pennines so there’s amazing countryside, it’s made up of a number of old industrial towns that went through very hard times in the 70s and 80s with the closure of a lot of manufacturing industries particularly in textiles and engineering. But the big thing that you get when you go up there is a sense that people have refused to be defeated by that and have pulled themselves up. There’s low unemployment and you get a sense of a thriving area, but an area that still needs support from a Labour Government. When you go round an area like that you realise how important things like the New Deal and the WFTC are, because someone who’s on the WFTC has gone from working for real poverty pay to being on perhaps £11,000 a year, and yes, it’s not a huge salary, but it makes a massive difference to their lives. There’s this great myth about the Heartlands vote which is hugely disaffected, I actually often find people in the constituency are much, more positive about the Government than those better off people who live in London, because they’re the people who are the main recipients of what the

Government has been doing. JA: Obviously internal criticism is a healthy thing for the Labour Party, but what would you say to people like Liz Davies who are defecting to parties which they claim are more left-wing than Labour? JP: Well there’s two things, firstly there’s internal debate which is necessary to develop policy, give it legitimacy, and make sure that members own the policy process. The Labour Party has always been the party of debate and we’re grown up enough to cope with it. In terms of Liz Davies’ defection, I admire people like Gerald Kaufman who stayed in the Labour Party in the 1980s at a time when it looked to them as if their personal aspirations were

going to continually be blocked and the party was going in a direction which was fundamentally at odds with what they wanted. But their loyalty has always been to the Party, they stayed and fought from inside it. I just think that anyone who is a true Labour Party person would never leave it, I certainly couldn’t. There are lots of people who would share Liz Davies’ views, but who would never dream of leaving the Party, and that’s what’s made it such a successful movement. JA: Who has inspired you the most? JP: Neil Kinnock. I remember watching the speech at Conference about Militant in Liverpool and I remember the hair on the back of my neck standing up on end. He had that combination

of principle and bravery which was inspiring to anyone who was sympathetic to the Labour party. I think if it hadn’t been for Neil Kinnock there’s a very real chance that the Labour Party could have died out. He had the guts to force through the changes which then made sure that there was a platform for John Smith and Tony Blair to take the Party to victory in 1997. I’ve worked for Tony Blair for 10 years now on and off, and he’s also always inspired me in my politics. People forget that he went into the House of Commons in 1983 at a time when if you’d been a pure career politician you’d have joined the SDP or the Tories. The thing that I learnt early on from him when I was 19 was if you wanted to do anything about the causes you believed in you had to be in power. If I had been told then that the Labour Party would have formed a Government in 1997 with such a mandate, I wouldn’t have believed it! Most of all I’m inspired by the people who work in the front line of public services. You meet people who have dedicated their lives to turning around a failing housing estate, or teachers who work in inner city schools for very little money. Their dedication is what inspires me the most, and I think that they should be much better rewarded for it. JA: What do you think will be the main focus of the Government’s second term will be? JP: I think it’s really about creating a true meritocratic society, and if that is what you want to create it means a very radical programme. Everyone should have the same life chances, wherever they are born, whoever their parents are, and that means a massive investment in education and taking on unfair privilege wherever it may be. You have to start by creating high standards of security for everyone whether it’s pensioners, or people who lose their jobs or those on disability benefit. We’ve done a lot on that in our first term. The challenge beyond that is creating a situation in which you still have the same life chances and get to make the most of yourself whether your parents are rich or not, whatever chances they had themselves, or whether you are born in London or Manchester. Anticipations Spring 2001

Debate

Tactical Voting Pragmatism vs principle For Against A

ny Young Fabians who read Tribune will know that its letters pages in recent weeks have been filled by correspondents attacking me for urging tactical voting against the Tories. In a column, I argued that Labour supporters should vote Lib Dem at the general election wherever there was a sitting Lib Dem MP and wherever the Lib Dem came second to Labour in 1997. In return, I went on, Lib Dem supporters should vote Labour wherever there is a Labour MP or the Labour candidate came second to a Tory in 1997. I also published a list of all the seats where the Lib Dem came second to a Tory last time. I wrote the piece in a deliberately provocative way, and I knew I’d get a vigorous response. Many Tribune readers are party stalwarts who still cannot forgive the apostasy of the Gang of Four abandoning Labour to set up the SDP 20 years ago - and the paper was a strong opponent of tactical voting when the idea was first raised in the mid-1980s (though it became rather warmer when I was editor in the early 1990s). None the less, I have been surprised by the virulence of hostility that has been expressed by Tribune’s readers in the past few weeks. The split in Labour’s ranks that created the SDP is now ancient history - and in the past 15 years Labour and the Liberal Democrats have converged politically as never before. Both are now centre-left social democratic parties, pro-Nato and pro-

Anticipations Spring 2001

European, with more in common than divides them. The old argument that the fundamental division in British politics is between Labour’s socialism and the other parties’ capitalism ceased to have validity when Labour ditched Clause Four. Of course, the Liberal Democrats are not perfect. Some of them are unsavoury characters. In some places, they are the main rivals to Labour in local government and are none too scrupulous in their methods. I shall never forget the shameful pandering to racism of the Liberals in Tower Hamlets in the early 1990s.

But by comparison with the Tories they are angels - and potential allies for Labour in reforming Britain’s still-creaking constitution and repairing the damage done to our public services during the 18 years of Conservative government. No one has yet convinced me that advocating a Labour vote where only the Lib Dems have a hope of beating the Tories is anything other than sentimental tribalist bluster.

Paul Anderson is a Tribune columnist. He edited the paper between 1991 and 1993.

actical voting is yesterday’s solution to yesterday’s problem. In the 1980s it was possible, just about, to advance a case for it in some parts of the country. Labour and the Alliance were far more evenly matched in terms of support than Labour and the Lib Dems are now. Labour’s extremism made it unlikely to win in most seats in suburban areas and the South of England. The Labour Party was organisationally dead in many areas. It was possible to appreciate, if not to support, the argument for a kind of desperate common front to keep out Thatcher by voting for whichever opposition party was second placed in your constituency. Those days are long gone. Unfortunately, advocates of tactical voting have not caught up with the changes in British politics and are still supporting a tactic that is at best irrelevant, at worst dangerous to the Labour Party. Tactical voting is a one way street. It is mainly advocated in terms of Labour voters backing second placed Lib Dems. I have never heard a single Lib Dem return the favour by advocating a vote for Labour in the many more constituencies where Labour is second. Even if they did, the semi-anarchistic nature of Lib Dem voters and activists would mean that they would deliver very little in terms of votes or campaigning. Tactical voting assumes that Labour can never win from third place. Yet Labour won about ten seats from third place in 1997. Voting “tactically” for the nominal second place party in seats like Hastings and Rye would have split the anti-Tory vote and helped them keep the seat. This is exactly what happened in my home seat of Canterbury where it is a fair guess that the slim Tory majority over Labour in 1997 was exceeded by

The New Machiavelli

The New Machiavelli the number of Labour voters who were conned into voting “tactically” for the Lib Dems, who were second in 1992. Tactical voting assumes that there are no-go areas for Labour. Unlike the Lib Dems, Labour has the potential to win in almost every part of the country. Making these kind of assumptions is a self-fulfilling prophesy: as soon as Labour stops acting like a serious challenger in a seat it condemns itself to a local cycle of decline. This soon spreads from parliamentary to local government elections. Tactical voting assumes that there is some advantage to the Labour Party or the country in there being more Lib Dem MPs. Maybe there would be in a tight, hung Parliament election. But when Labour is miles ahead, we can afford to think long term and build our strength in all areas, not vote for the lesser of two evils. When Lib Dem MPs, elected with tactical Labour votes, like Norman Baker and Evan Harris, repay that support with constant attacks on Labour ministers, I find it difficult to see the advantage of having them in the House of Commons. The Lib Dems are not some kind of “Labour lite”: they are another political party with an ideology that is hostile to democratic socialism, and a strategic objective of replacing the Labour Party as one of Britain’s two main parties. What all Labour supporters should do is to vote strategically, not tactically. That means voting Labour and building Labour for future success in every part of the country. It means casting a positive vote for your first choice politically and ideologically, not a lowest common denominator vote.

Luke Akehurst, is the Labour PPC for Aldershot

Family Values

t is gratifying to know that family values beat strong at the heart of New Labour. Andrew Smith MP was booked to address the annual Fabian Spring Reception at the House of Commons terrace, but discovered an unfortunate clash with his wedding anniversary on the same day. Luckily Dawn Primarolo stepped in at the last minute.

The unkindest cut

Invitations to the Spring Reception arrived on doormats with a large section missing. The original invites (now already trading for hundreds over the internet) included a cartoon. A timely intervention from a senior member of the exec (Gordon Marsden to be precise) had the cartoon sliced from every card. The cartoon depicted two pigs looking over a wall at a poster of William Hague. One is saying to the other: ‘that must be foot-in-mouth disease’. It must have seemed funny at the time.

Another Fabian PPC

Congratulations to Judith Begg, Fabian staffer and YF stalwart, who has been selected to fight Christchurch in the Labour interest at the next election. She is the party’s youngest candidate, unless someone can tell me different. The last person to take leave from the Fabians to fight an unwinnable (sorry – ‘hard to win’) seat was the last General Secretary Stephen Twigg – and look what happened to him.

es have been heard to suggest that I know more about the former than the latter. There are a few copies left unsold – and it’s available from Amazon.com and all good bookshops. The ideal gift for your local candidate!

Get Ready

Campaigning in Lewes the other Saturday, a lady came up to me and said her husband had been phoned by Millbank asking if he would like to go to the John Prescott ‘Get Ready’ show in Brighton. She said he would have liked to have gone, but he had been dead for three years. I started to explain about the use of out of date lists and to apologise, but she said: ‘Don’t worry, I don’t mind at all - the Labour Party has increased my pension and found my daughter a job, so I’m definitely voting Labour.’

Sad

Finally, my latest bout of sad secondhand book shopping on the internet has led to a remarkable discovery from 1951: ‘Songs of NALSO – a collection of socialist songs and parodies’. Nalso was the National Association of Labour Student Organisations, which was the forerunner of Labour Students. The song book contains such classics as Avanti Popolo, the Internationale, Jerusalem, Red Fly the Banners, Oh, and the Red Flag. Bizarrely, it was bought from a dealer in Kalamazoo, USA.

How to Win an Election

You don’t seriously expect me to write a diary without mentioning my new book do you? It’s called ‘How to Win an Election – the art of political campaigning’ and it’s published by Politico’s. There’s plenty of tips and anecdotes, as well as sections on how to lose and how to win. Some unkind voic-

Paul Richards is the PPC for Lewes Anticipations Spring 2001

Outside the Tent

Fuming Truckers Martin Hall, Committee Member of the People’s Fuel Lobby, tells Jessica Asato why the PFL thinks the Government got it wrong Jessica Asato: How was the People’s Fuel Lobby formed and who makes up your members? Martin Hall: Basically one person drove around the whole country meeting groups which contacted us to say they were interested in campaigning against rises in tax on fuel. In the end we had representatives from every area except for Devon, Cornwall and Hampshire. After that, those representatives selected a Committee representing various organisations which became known as the People’s Fuel Lobby. Our website was one of the main ways we were able to get people involved in the campaign at short notice and at the height of the protest it was receiving 1800 hits a day. The PFL is made up of representatives from the general public, haulage and farming industries and other small business affected by the increasing pressure of rising fuel costs. Following the organised protests the general feeling amongst the organisers and supporters was that a united and structured lobby would be the best way forward to promote their aims and objectives and to formalise their response to the government. We do not have a membership as such, we run ourselves with the support of the British public who feel aggrieved at the present taxation on fuel. At the height of the protest 98% of the British public were in favour of a reduction in fuel tax. Since then we have had to endure floods, rail accidents and now the foot and mouth crisis. Nevertheless the Peoples Fuel Lobby remains watching and waiting, and when the time is right we will reappear and rekindle our support with simple facts, but most of all, the truth. JA: What exactly are you campaigning for? MH: We are campaigning for a reduction in fuel tax across the board of 26p a litre. The PFL is anxious to put across the fact that its sole objective is to pressure the government into reviewing their policy on fuel taxation and that it has no political motives. If the levels of fuel duty were applied to other common items; two pints of milk would cost £2.14, a loaf of bread would cost £1.58, a first class stamp would cost £1.13, and a no frills evening out with dinner for two would cost £175.58. JA: Surely the cost of fuel should be rising, not falling, to persuade people out of their cars and onto public transport? MH: This might be okay in city areas but where is the public transport for the people in the countryside? Public 16

Anticipations Spring 2001

transport is not supplied to take children to school, or to take the old age pensioner to collect his or her pension. People are fed up with paying good money to travel to their destination standing in the aisles all the way and not knowing whether they will be one of those casualties you see on TV in the next avoidable train catastrophe. Public transport is not an option. Buses and coaches have become more expensive again because of the underlying cost of running them. The privatised rail and bus companies continue to slash services and close branch routes because running them is not “cost effective,” i.e. the shareholders aren’t getting their dividends and the government is doing nothing about it. Rail companies have been under performing and missing targets ever since privatisation. Yet they’re all still in business. The driver is in a lose-lose situation. It costs a fortune to run a car, and it costs a fortune to use public transport. For convenience, the car will win every time. We agree with environmentalists that the world needs to prevent more green house gas emissions but they must recognise that fuel duty has little to do with the environment. Diesel fuel, although potentially renewable by using vegetable oils, is no longer substantially cheaper than leaded petrol. So although it’s technically cleaner, and potentially a renewable resource, it’s taxed at near enough the same rate. LPG is the cleanest fuel there is but the government isn’t actively trying to convert you to it. JA: Were you happy with the concessions made by Gordon Brown in his budget a few weeks ago? MH: No, we were not happy with Gordon Brown. His budget cut the rate of duty on ultra low sulphur petrol only by 2p per litre which is all very well, but not everywhere sells low sulphur petrol. We don’t know the real implications of using it, for example, university research has shown that it causes more wear on the engine, and this means that vehicles use more litres per kilometre. This problem is exacerbated in heavy vehicles. So this may mean that engines will consume even more fuel which operates completely contrary to what the government says it wants to achieve. Despite the fact that the budget reduced road tax for cars with engine sizes below 1500cc, our fuel tax is still the highest in Europe with approximately £8 in every £10 going straight to the government. This hits everyone’s pocket, young and old.

Corduroy

Corduroy Column Mr. Rosen ruminates on the contribution of pigeon-fancying to Labour’s link with the Trade Unions

here are times, such as in the period surrounding the London Mayoral selection, when, from the contents of many newspapers, one might be forgiven for thinking that Labour’s institutional link with the trade unions was the source of all its problems. The Conservatives have been particularly good at propagating this myth by the repetition of grainy footage of the Winter of Discontent during innumerable Tory PPBs to this day. Rarely, if ever, is any thought given to whether the tragedy of the Winter of Discontent of 1978-79 would have been any different, or the fallout for the Callaghan government any less, had the institutional link not existed. The answer is undoubtedly no. Ted Heath had no more success than Wilson and Callaghan in coping with the problems that beset the industrial relations of that era and nobody can put that down to a union link! Much of the problem was the extent to which the antiquated structures of many of the fractious unions of the time lent themselves to being hi-jacked by shop-floor militants. With no requirement to ballot before a strike, or indeed to give a secret ballot to ordinary union members in the election of union leaders, it was easy for the assorted varieties of the revolutionary left to exert an influence considerably in excess of their numbers. That all began to change in the early 1960s when the Communist leadership of the Electrical Trades Union (later the EETPU and now part of the AEEU/MSF) was famously found guilty in the High Court of rigging the ballots for the General Secretary election. The new nonCommunist leadership, led by Les Cannon and Frank Chapple, modernised the union, ensuring key decisions were taken on a One Member

One Vote basis by independently scrutinised postal ballot, increasing turnout in union ballots and therefore making the union considerably more representative of its members. By the 1980s, OMOV postal ballots were being adopted by other unions too. There were clearly ongoing problems in those unions who were slow to modernise, Arthur Scargill’s NUM being a notable case in point. Nevertheless, the fact is that during the 1980s it was the trade-unions who kept Labour’s feet on the ground and provided an umbilical cord to the instincts and aspirations of working people. It was the unions that reminded the Party that its priorities ought to be bread and butter issues, not the gesture politics of resolutionary socialism or single-issue pressuregroups. Without the union link, Labour risked being hijacked as a vehicle for those whom Herbert Morrison dubbed ‘kitchen revolutionaries’ and Frank Chapple saw as the ‘lunatic left,’ whose power base since the days of the Keep Left Group had always been the Constituency Section of Labour’s NEC. It was the same story back in the 1950s when Hugh Gaitskell was battling the unilateralists. Though the TGWU leadership of Frank Cousins bore a great deal of the responsibility for the battles of that time, it was the failure of the un-modernised TGWU internal structure that gave its leadership the power to substitute its own enthusiasms for the interests of its members. It was not a problem of unions as a whole and it was on other unions that Gaitskell relied to back his position – not the constituency parties who, un-modernised, were just as unrepresentative of the average Labour voter as the leadership of the TGWU. Frank Chapple and the EETPU, pioneered the cause of Labour’s moderni-

sation even in the 1970s. It is enthusiastically championed still by his successor at the AEEU, Sir Ken Jackson, who has sought to marry the ethos of partnership in the workplace with a healthy partnership between the union and the Labour Party. 'I called for drastic changes,' Chapple recalled in his 1984 memoirs, ‘MPs should be selected by the whole Party membership; the NEC should concentrate on organisation, rather than harmful politicking; parties within the Party, like Militant, must get their marching orders; and the unions would take their political role seriously; otherwise, Labour would be an electoral dinosaur, limping towards extinction.’ Chapple was clear about the changes Labour needed. He was also clear about the how they were going to be brought about; ‘I was concerned, too, that Roy Jenkins declared that a trade union based rescue of Labour was unacceptable. I could see the virtue of that detached position, but it was unreal and utopian. The best prospect for halting the leftward drift lay with the unions...’ Chapple was a blunt and at times controversial figure and was forthright in backing Neil Kinnock for the Labour leadership in 1983. On Kinnock’s preparedness to take on Militant, and on how to modernise the unions and save Labour, Chapple was proved right. It is doubtful whether Chapples’s enthusiastic devotion to the cause of pigeon-fancying any longer carries the same resonance with the wider electorate as in the past. But a sophisticated analysis of the importance of Labour’s link with the trade-unions needs something more intellectually substantial to underpin it than the desire of the image-conscious moderniser to distance the Labour Party from the pigeon racing fraternity.

Greg Rosen is Vice-Chair Policy Anticipations Spring 2001

View from the House

The Core of Labour’s Problem Ben Leapman argues that the greatest election threat is presented by heartlands voters not the Tories

he other day, a Blairite Labour MP tells me, an elderly constituent stopped him in the street. “You’re my MP, aren’t you?” she asked. “I just wanted to say how nice everything is around here. I don’t have any problems for you!” A Tory front-bencher relates a quite different story. “If you ask me whether life has got any better since 1997 for my most deprived constituents, I would have to say no.” Did you believe any of that? OK, I was fibbing. It was the other way around. The young Tory told me, over lunch, about his frustrating encounter with the annoyingly upbeat pensioner. And the Labour MP confessed to the stubborn nature of inner-city poverty. The tale illustrates the difficulties facing the two parties at the forthcoming election, which leave both sides conspiring to delude the public. First the Tories. William Hague must pretend he has a chance of winning, even though he knows Middle England is content under Tony Blair and will vote to re-elect the Government. Since the fall of Margaret Thatcher, divisions within the Conservatives have run even deeper than those within Labour. With no prospect of winning the election, Mr Hague is fighting only to save his own job. Yet little light is being shed on the current Tory leadership contest because challengers such as Michael Portillo, Ann Widdecombe and Iain Duncan Smith are keeping their powder dry. So are their allies among MPs and in the Press. The lesson of Michael Heseltine, that disloyalty does not pay, looms large. So all those election press conferences, with Mr Hague insisting he is on his way to Downing Street, will be so much hot air. But Labour is being even more manipulative by pretending the Tories are the threat, when Millbank knows the real danger is disappointment among core Labour supporters. Fear of Tories

Anticipations Spring 2001

is the one thing which can still get out the vote in Labour areas. In this battle against apathy, what upsets ministers most is being told how the Government has failed to live up to some of the high hopes of 1997. You can tell it from the tone of Commons exchanges. Tories who gripe about something or other make easy targets. Labour can reply: “Things would be a whole lot worse if you lot got in and slashed public spending.” Ministers sound more petulant when they are attacked from the Left by the Liberal Democrats. They hate to be told, for example, that the share of the nation’s wealth being spent on health and education has been lower under Tony Blair than it was under John Major’s government. I recently watched Gordon Brown duck and weave when pressed on the point in a select committee hearing. This surprising statistic, confirmed in last month’s Budget, is a consequence of the decision to stick with Tory spending plans during the first two years of a Labour government. Gordon Brown’s cash freeze sealed the love-affair between Middle England and New Labour which ensured the landslide victory in 1997. Now it is returning to haunt the Government in the form of wobbly public services with investment arriving too late to secure visible improvement this side of re-election. Even ministers struggle in private to say that things really got better in the Labour heartlands. That is why the criticism from the Left hurts, and why Labour must resort to pretending the Tories can win. Last time I contributed to Anticipations, three years ago, it was to explain why Ken Livingstone is still held in such affection by those of us who grew up in London during the 1980s. I said Ken would be the grassroots choice for Mayoral candidate, and that

Millbank would be crazy to block his selection. Millbank was crazy, and the cost was Frank Dobson’s humiliation last May. Now the consummate politician is back as Mayor, and getting his own way as ever. Throughout the bitter negotiations over the future of the London Underground, ministers and New Labour backbenchers have privately accepted that he will be allowed back into the Labour party, some time after the general election but before the scheduled end of his five-year exclusion in 2005. In return for re-admittance he has been told to drop his plans to embarrass the Government with a judicial review of the Tube part-privatisation. Yet once more Ken holds all the strong cards. If his membership card is returned in time, he can lead Labour to a huge victory in London in May 2004. If not, he will be hot favourite to win a second term as an independent. And which first-rate Labour politician will want to follow Mr Dobson’s route to another drubbing?

Ben Leapman is a political reporter for the Evening Standard, and a Young Fabian

Forthcoming events: Young Fabians in the North have a packed programme later in the year including conferences on Europe and the North and farming in the North. Contact Suresh at sureshp@doctors.org.uk for more details. Also look out for the Young Fabian summer mixed doubles tennis tournament. Please choose your partner and send your details to James Connal at: jamesconnal @hotmail.com

Correspondence

Letter from Shanghai Tim Sharp looks at the changing face of China’s great city

hanghai today is at the forefront of China’s modernisation and openingup strategy. The pace of Shanghai’s development makes it a fantastic place to view the co-existence and struggle between the traditional and the modern that is a less explicit feature of many cities across the world. The pace of Shanghai’s development with the reassertion of its position as the centre of China’s shipping, trade and financial activities make it particularly evident. The closely packed overhanging lanes of old Shanghai are interspersed with shiny skyscrapers. These come no shinier or newer than the 88-storey Jin Mao building in the new financial district of Pudong. A decade ago this area consisted simply of paddy fields and decrepit housing. The economic focus of Shanghai may be shifting to Pudong but the real life of the city remains in the centre proper. The major shopping streets of Nanjing Lu and Huai Hai Lu are crammed with department stores boasting a range of Western goods. These throng with eager shoppers until 11 o’ clock at night. However, in Shanghai the brashness of the new can easily be dispelled by a reminder of the old. Directly behind Huai Hai Lu lie the buildings of the old French Concession. Lifestyles here barely seem to have altered since the 1920s. Much of life is conducted publicly. Washing hangs from poles across the narrow alleyways. Old men and women sit gossiping on their stools. People prepare food for dinner. Nearby, fortune tellers and bicycle repairmen do not so much ply for trade as wait quietly for it to come by. The lawlessness of these narrow passageways and small streets allowed the key radicals of pre-liberation China to plot its change. The substantial house of Nationalist Sun Yat-sen, the first postImperial president, with its British style lawn and 1920s decor can be found

here. Nearby lies the meeting place of the First Communist Party Congress that was so rudely broken up by the arrival of a French spy. In the name of modernisation these historic buildings are coming face-to-face with the expensive restaurants and bars and the inevitable Starbucks that cater to the needs of foreign businesspeople and the small Shanghainese elite. Nevertheless, some of it remains unchanged. Shanghai’s true beauty does not lie in its bustling shops, its streets crowded with bikes and cars, or even in its history- crammed alleyways but in the tranquility of its innumerable parks and gardens. From dawn to dusk these

. In the name of modernisation historic buildings come face-toface with the inevitable Starbucks are filled with old men and women practicing their tai ji. Families come down here to fly their magnificent brightly coloured dragon kites. Old men bring their songbirds and gossip. In the face of a fast-moving, rapidly changing city these are enduring oases of space and peace. A third view of Shanghai is available in the outskirts where I stay: a world of factories and apartment blocks. The accommodation is largely good by Chinese standards. Families have been moved from the unsanitary lanes of old Shanghai, cleared to make way for the skyscrapers, and have been housed in neat white-tiled six-storey blocks. These boast the modern facilities such as electricity, sewerage provision and running water (only cold water – even “foreign guests such as teachers do not get hot water) that 70% of Shanghai’s

population now enjoy. However, as soon as these residents emerge from their residential units they will find the other 30%. Running along the street in front of my school are the shops, many no more than shacks, that are the home and work of Shanghai’s dispossessed. Shanghai, despite its success, has one of China’s highest unemployment rates composed largely of illegal migrants who have left their unprofitable farms. Small groups of men and women collect on street corners wearing signs advertising their skills. Many more, however, scrape together some sort of living. Some sell bao zi, the meat dumpling that is the staple of the Shanghainese breakfast. Other provide 24-hour welding (safety goggles purely optional). There is a range of cigarette vendors and a plethora of “restaurants.” These feed the legions of manual workers who are dormed in wooden huts on construction sites across the city and whose cheap labour supports Shanghai’s boom. The road acts as a dustbin and river as a toilet which makes for a rather pungent experience when it rains. Shanghai is a complex place. There is the modern Shanghai of Pudong and department stores. There is the rapidly diminishing old Shanghai of alleyways and little shops and parks. Only in the latter is old Shanghai safely conserved. While the brand-new skyscrapers and old alleyways compete for space, however, the third Shanghai exists out in the suburbs. These people have benefited from the sewerage provision and running water of modern Shanghai. Yet, every day they witness the need to combat the overcrowding, unemployment and associated social ills that come with the city’s success.

Tim Sharp is a Young Fabian

Anticipations Spring 2001

Book Reviews

Book Reviews and Letters Page “Shrub” - the Short, but Happy Political Life of George W Bush, by Molly Ivins. To many George W Bush is an enigma - the most famous thing about him is his father. In this excellent book Ivins tries to understand Bush by studying his six years as Governor of Texas. Overall, she comes to the conclusion that Bush is a likeable guy with real political skills. His main achievement in Texas was to gain the support of the Christian Right, whilst keeping the economic conservatives on side. In terms of social policy and his law and order agenda he was more hard line than his compassionate image, but was passionate about driving up educational standards for children of all backgrounds. She leaves the reader in no doubt about Bush’s credentials as a supporter of big business. As a man, Bush is often thought of as stupid and lazy, but the book sees him more as a hyperactive man with a short attention span - always keen to move on and tackle the next issue. It is said that it is better to be lucky than smart in politics, and Ivins suggests that Bush is so lucky that “if they tried to hang him the rope would break!” My conclusion from reading the book is that we should not underestimate Bush. Given the low expectations of him going into office, he will not have to do much to impress!

James Connal

Did Things Get Better? An Audit of Labour’s Successes and Failures by Polly Tonybee and David Walker It’s the end of term which can only mean one thing ‘report time’, and as such Tonybee and Walker pose the question Did things get better? as they systematically leave no stone unturned in this lively assessment of the Labour Government. According to their audit should the Government hang its head in shame or stand tall and proud against its achievements? Overall the progress to date is admirable, given their view that the Government was so slow off the blocks in its bid to deliver a fairer society, they are particularly critical of the commitment to stay within Tory spending plans for the first two years. Brown is given a gold star for the economy, although they hope to see more clarity in his reform in future, perceiving tax credits to be gallantly redistributive but hard to sell to the public. Blair is praised for his strength in Kosovo and Northern Ireland but 20

Anticipations Spring 2001

ticked off for failing to give adequate lead in Europe. Unsurprisingly given the stance of the two author’s employer, the big culprits consist of Jack Straw, the authoritarian at the Home Office, whilst the sidelining of the constitutional debate is also highlighted as a weakness as is transport policy. Yet with all such assessments it is important to watch the watchdog. Generally the Tonybee and Walker assessment is welcomed, most notably for putting the politics back into politics – how refreshing it was to view politics through the policy-lens, which magnifies the substantial achievements of this Government particularly in the areas of human rights, devolution, education and the abolition of pensioner poverty, rather than having to stomach the usual diet of gossiporientated, sleaze driven political analysis that so plague press assessment. Knowing that the Government is on course to meet most of its targets may not be the stuff of headlines but is what holds the potential to really change things for the better. And how ironic that such an objective headline-free account should emanate from the journalism trade itself.

Guy Lodge

“The Prime Minister: The Office and its Holders since 1945” by Peter Hennessy Most aspiring politicians must still assume that both their political and personal ambitions would best be realised as prime minister: the top job in government. But its job description remains even today surprisingly elusive. Peter Hennessy, already respected for his insights into the workings of our constitution, leaves behind the debate between prime ministerial and cabinet government and focuses on how the office has been shaped by both changing priorities in government and the holders themselves. His analysis is characterised by his penchant for checklists which breaks the narrative but is useful to the student. However, this is more than made up for in Hennessy’s rich mine of quotes and anecdotes. In the first and shorter part of the book, Hennessy looks at the external factors which have ‘stretched ‘ the premiership, such as the handling of the media, the growth of international summitry, and the managing of our war capability. This last factor is perhaps the most eye-opening, especially the contingency plans for a possible total war which are set out in the ‘war book.’ It is the prime minister who has the sole authority to launch a nuclear strike, which would most likely also be his last act.

Letters

The rest of the book takes a chronological look at the premiers since Attlee. The impression given is that Attlee was the closest to Hennessy’s unstated ideal of an efficient chairman of talented ministers. At the other end of his ‘Premier League’ comes Eden for wasting his great personal potential even to the extent of misleading allies and parliament itself over Suez. On the present incumbent, Hennessy rightly keeps an open judgement. He is impressed by Blair’s enthusiasm for reform, but remains concerned about the change in prime ministerial attitude toward the Cabinet and Parliament. Hennessy tries to capture Blair’s modus operandi by inserting his closest confidants in a series of circles radiating from the Prime Minister and his inner core. However, this is not an irreducible core: by spring 2000, Brown was edging in. Despite the lack of a specific job description for the office, Hennessy contends that its holder does not have an unfettered ability to tailor the title to its wearer. A wise prime minister has a regard to the deep history of the office and is aware of its political limitations, which when breached demean both the office and its holder.

Kevin Bonavia

International Group Update

ot no embassy receptions? The International Group has been focused on the forthcoming pamphlet proposing that Britain takes a lead on some key aspects of international governance, including human rights, trade and the environment, military intervention, third world debt, media policy and weapons of mass destruction. It has had input from Clare Short MP among others. Embassy receptions and other events are planned, including our next event at the Latvian Embassy (date tbc). The anticipated General Election is, quite rightly, diverting some of our attention away from organizing these events as we work for a historic second term for Labour. Should this Labour Government be returned to power there will be immediate and pressing concerns facing the foreign policy agenda – and the Young Fabians will be engaging with that debate through the Group. Membership of a successful single European currency, partnership with a European Rapid Reaction Force, continued instability in the Balkans and pressing concerns over Third World debt will be foremost among them. As Fabians we are uniquely placed to contribute to those debates. With a full and vibrant programme from the International Group we intend to maximizethat involvement. Chris Underwood, International Group Co-ordinator

Dear Editor

would like to support the case for positive discrimination in political selection, as so well argued by Becky Harris of the Fawcett Society in last issue’s ‘Debate’. That is not to say, however that I totally disagree with Alex Barden’s assertion that ‘steps should be taken to assure a genuine meritocracy’. That would be nice wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, today’s society, however progressive we think we are, still just does not think like that. Fawcett’s statistic that only 3 out of 30 of Labour’s ‘safe’ seats available for this general election have selected a woman as their candidate, says it all. Surely these few women are not the only ones who stood for selection with the calibre and ability to be a good MP, particularly as shortlists now have to be fiftypercent women? The fact is unfortunately that women just are not being selected. The hearts of any politically ambitious woman at Labour Party Spring Conference must have sunk as we celebrated Labour’s by-election victories since 97. As the faces of the successful candidates beamed down at us from the big screen, the absence of women among them was glaring. I do not believe that it is the case that so few women have the ability to be Members of Parliament and so unfortunately, while I agree that Mr Barden’s ‘genuine meritocracy’ is a great idea, it presently simply does not exist. There is still an inherent belief in political circles that men are implicitly better suited to the political arena and that women cannot possibly be as suitable for, or even interested in, election. Hence, most constituencies, given a choice between a male and female candidates of equal quality will probably choose the man. This even extends to the women voters and those who do not see themselves as explicitly prejudiced against women. Unfortunately, this is not going to change spontaneously overnight. The measures suggested by Fawcett are essential. It will take generations to change societal attitudes and I see no harm in helping them along the way. In promoting women for selection in this way, political parties are doing precisely as Mr Barden would like, and ‘assuring a genuine democracy’ that will be available for future generations, without precluding the current one from equal success in public life.

Ami Ibitson Women’s Officer Lewisham Deptford CLP & Greenwich and Lewisham Fabians.

Anticipations Spring 2001

Scotland

A War on Two Fronts Judith Begg explains why Labour must fight both the Tories and the SNP in the forthcoming General Election

he SNP and the Tories are combining in Scotland to try 1997, the promise of the installation of free central heating and convince the electorate that the coming General for all pensioners within the next five years, and free conElection is irrelevant to the people of Scotland. It is in both cessionary off-peak bus travel from next year. their interests to look to the constitutional conflicts of the We can be proud of what we’ve achieved so far, but there past, rather than join us in the fight for social justice that has is still so much left to do. always driven the Labour Party forwards. That’s why we need to ensure, not only that we hold on to The SNP are more interested in taking Scotland out of the new voters we won over in 1997, but also that we get all Britain than poverty out of Scotland, whilst the Tories look our core supporters out to vote. It’s essential that we to create a two tier system for MPs at Westminster, barring remind people of just how dangerous the Tories can be. Scots MPs from certain votes in Westminster. The economic and social disaster that was the last Tory The SNP threaten Scotland’s jobs, economy and public administration must be kept fresh in the minds of the elecservices with their flagrant irresponsibility and incompetorate, and painting a picture of a Hague-led Britain, aided tence. They refuse to divulge how they would pay for their and abetted by Portillo and Widdecombe, may not be a bad policies, or rather how they would make the Scottish people idea either. pay. Their answer to invigorating the At the end of the day, Scotland faces “It’s time to down Scottish economy is that we should cut off the same choice as the rest of the UK: full ties with our largest trading partner. Put capuccinos and internal employment versus mass unemployment, simply, they haven’t got a clue about the investment in public services versus cuts debate and get out grown-up world that the rest of us have to and privatisation, stability versus boom live in. However, the biggest danger of and bust and strong communities versus there on the the SNP is that they will let the Tories in by social division and decay. campaign trail.” the back door. So, the election is upon us. We need In this General Election, like all others, every vote to ensure that we can continue the real division is between us and the Tories, not Scotland to make progress, and not let the Tories drag us back and and the rest of the UK. Every vote for the SNP or the down. Liberal Democrats is a vote to put William Hague in Intellectually, practically, we’ve won the argument. It’s Downing Street. time now to get out there and let every single voter know the The Tories may seem a hopeless irrelevance in Scotland, choice they face. Labour or the Tories, Blair or Hague, simbut their aim is to foster apathy and cynicism amongst the ple as that. electorate to ensure that enough of them stay at home, or As Young Fabians, we can be proud of our role as the use their vote as a single issue protest, to place Labour seats thinking man’s crumpet of the Labour Movement, but it’s in danger. time now to down cappuccinos and internal debate and get With Labour leadership in Holyrood, and the Labour out there on the campaign trail. You can have your corGovernment in Westminster, a real partnership of duroy back after the election, I promise. Parliaments has developed. Working together on our priorFrom Aberdeen to Ayr, we’ve got to hold the line, and not ities to deliver social justice for the people of Scotland. give the Tories the chance to destroy everything we’ve Whether you look at our mission to ensure that all Scots worked for, and rob the people of Scotland of the future are ready for tomorrow’s jobs, or that our pensioners can that they deserve. live in the dignity that they deserve, it is easy to trace the way If you want to volunteer for the Scottish Labour Party, that the Parliaments are working together to achieve a phone them on 0141 572 6900 to find out where you can be shared vision of a new Scotland. On jobs, this means of most use. increased access to quality training, more places in FE and See you on the doorstep. HE institutions and more modern apprenticeships. For pensioners, this means an increase in pensioners from £68 Judith Begg is the Co-ordinator of the Fabian Women’s per week to £92 per week for the poorest pensioners since Network and Labour’s youngest PPC.

Anticipations Spring 2001

Wales

Ieuan Wyn Jones You are the weakest link, goodbye! Peregrine Anderson looks at the latest Labour Party news from Wales

s the General Election looms around the corner in early June, Welsh Labour is aware that the threat from the Tories still remains as great as ever. It was made clear at Labour’s Spring conference by Paul Murphy, Secretary of State for Wales, that the Conservatives are firmly lined up with Plaid Cymru as enemies of the devolution settlement. Although there is a majority in favour of devolution in Wales, this majority is not large. Both the Tories and Plaid Cymru know they can undermine the Assembly by a systematic wrecking of its credibility as an institution of social progress. In these first months of 2001, however, Welsh Labour has been able to achieve important objectives. Unemployment continues to fall in Wales, employment has risen by 17,000 over the last year. The Budget boosts the Assembly’s spending power by £100 million over three years, enabling tax changes with the potential to benefit one million working people and 250,000 families. The Budget also enables spending on health in Wales to increase by 2003-4. There has been a long overdue increase in the number of ex-miners eligible for health compensation, and in payments to miner’s widows, although these payments have initially been made very slowly. DTI statistics out in March show the Welsh economy starting from a low base, but recovering its strength steadily. A success, after all that Tory boom and bust. Initiatives have spanned a wide range of areas, from

the introduction of free entry to National Museums and Galleries to the return of free school milk. These successes are matched by HTV/NOP poll results published in February that showed support for Labour in Wales close to its 1997 General Election level, and support in the Assembly at its highest level since January 2000. The poll also reveals that the gap between Labour and Plaid Cymru in the Assembly voting intentions is the largest for two and a half years, and that Tory support remains motionless in Westminster and the Assembly. A low turn out on the day, on the other hand, would hit Labour harder than its opponents. A successful start has been made to achieving long-held objectives, but there is a lot more to be done. One example of frustration at the pace of progress from Welsh Labour supporters has been the launch this St David’s Day of the Bevan Foundation. This left-of-centre think tank, which is backed by, among others, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot, has called on the government to show more courage and initiative in the next administration. It is now up to the Labour movement in Wales and the UK to make sure the electorate is truly aware of the real alternatives on offer in June, to make sure progressive social change can continue successfully for a second and third term.

Peregrine Anderson is a Fabian Society Intern

Traineeships (stages) in the European Parliament Two traineeship places will be available for five months from 15 September 2001 in the Group of the Party of European Socialists in the European Parliament (Brussels). Applicants must be Labour Party Members be aged under 30 be fluent in a language of one of the other EU countries as well as English (knowledge of a third language would also be helpful), be graduates or have completed a degree or equivalent higher education course. An allowance of 40,000 Belgian francs per month (approximately £635) is paid to trainees during the five months. Application forms are available from: Valerie Derouaux, European Parliamentary Labour Party, 2 Queen Anne´s Gate, London, SW1H 9AA or by e-mail from: psedeleguk@europarl.eu.int The deadline for applications is Wednesday 14 May and interviews will take place on Friday 8 June 2001.

Anticipations Spring 2001

YF News

Chairs’ Columns Y

oung Fabians all over the country will be turning their attention to campaigning in the General Election over the next few months. Since the Fabian society is affiliated to the Labour Party our members have given much time and effort in the past helping to elect a Labour Government. This time you too can play your part in Operation Turnout seats across the country by delivering leaflets, knocking on doors and organising local campaigns. Many of our members will be fighting this election as Parliamentary candidates, including Judith Begg, a Young Fabian who is the youngest Labour candidate selected so far. Other former executive members who are fighting seats include Howard Dawber, Chris Naylor and Paul Richards. Good luck to them all! In January Young Fabian members from across the country gathered in the sulubrious setting of the Commonwealth Club to celebrate our 40th Anniversary Dinner - a tremendous success. Our guest speaker was John Spellar MP, Minister for the Armed Forces. He reminded Young Fabians not to “detach the thinking from the campaigning”. After all, without a Labour victory none of the policies and proposals that as a think tank we generate and discuss are worth the paper they are written on. We repeated this success with the Scottish Young Fabian Annual Dinner held at Spring Conference in Glasgow. 24

As the only think tank run by and for young people the Young Fabians are leading a project which will be assessing young people and their attitudes to politics. In the first stage of this research young people will be contacted in an on-line poll just before and and just after the election. Jessica Asato is leading the project working with election.com. If you are interested in getting involved please contact her at jessica_asato@hotmail.com. After the General Election expect lots more Young Fabian activities including a conference on Crime, Education, seminars on the future of the Internet, fringe debates at Labour Party Conference and of course our summer school. We also hope to be setting up a Young Fabian group in Wales. If you are interested in getting involved with an initial event please contact me at mariwilliams@ cwcom.net. Lastly - are you signed up to our email list yet? We aim to have one quarter of our membership signed up by September. Simply sent an email to youngfabian-subscribe@egroups.com and you will be regularly kept up to date with our activities and events. I hope to see you out on the campaign trail!

Mari Williams Chair

Scottish Young Fabians Hey folks! Firstly I would like to personally thank all of

Anticipations Spring 2001

the members of my executive committee for their hard work and dedication throughout this year - their continued commitment has meant that the Scottish Young Fabians have had an excellent year so far. Organisationally the executive is stronger now than it has ever been. I think the committee would agree when I say that this has helped not only the future planning of events and their organisation but also the development of a stronger bond, not only between members of the executive but also between them and the larger membership. Our first event of the year, our inaugural Annual Dinner, was a huge success. Our speaker was Brian Kenny from the Communication Workers Union. A member of their NEC and Political Funding Committee, Brian gave us his views on the relationship between the Labour Party and the Trade Union movement and how he sees this developing over the next few years. His speech was excellent and the food wasn’t bad either!! My heartfelt thanks go to Brian, the CWU for their continued support, the staff of SOBA Noodle Cafe who catered for our every need.... and all of you who attended. This was a success I know that future SYF execs will want to build on so keep it in your diary for next year. Another ‘first’ for the SYF’s this year was the launch our own newsletter ‘Talking Point’. I am especially pleased that this idea

has been realised because it not only allows the executive to keep members up to date with news and events but it gives our members a real voice and allows them to be involved at a level which had never before been achieved. This is obviously a new venture but one which we hope to develop in future issues expanding into four pages of comment and analysis of UK and Scottish Politics so if any of you have articles or book reviews which you would like considered for the next issue please send them to me as soon as you can. For those of you who had been looking forward to our fringe at Scottish conference please accept my apologies. This had to be cancelled due to an illness in my family. Our SYF/Critical Lawyers Discussion evening will still be taking place near the end of April/early May and I will be sending out details as soon as they are finalised. Also coming up this year is our Summer School which is being held in Glasgow in August. The exec have already started to organise this and will send out details nearer the time. Not only is this always a good weekend of discussion, debate and the odd swally afterwards (!!), it is also when the AGM will take place and the new exec elected so do try and come along if you can. Looking forward to seeing you in the near future,

Johanna Baxter Chair, Scottish Young Fabians Tel; 07811 450410

Join the Young Fabians for only £5.00 The Young Fabians is the under-31 section of the Fabian Society, Labour’s senior think-tank. We were set up in 1960 and remain the only think tank run by and for young people. We are affiliated to the Labour Party and are formally represented on Young Labour National Committee. As well as our policy and education work, the Young Fabians are the network for young professionals within the Labour Party. Young Fabians provided the volunteers for both Tony Blair’s leadership campaign in 1994 and the New Clause IV campaign in 1995. All the young MPs elected in 1997 are members of the Young Fabians, and there are more Fabian MPs than all the Tory MPs put together. As well as pamphlets we produce a quarterly magazine: ‘Anticipations’, and organise regular political events, conferences, trips abroad, residential summer schools, and social events. Recently we have established a Young Fabian debating team which competes with the Bow Group, Conservative Future and in national competitions. £5 membership also covers membership of the Fabian Society which includes a copy of Fabian Review every quarter, and at least five pamphlets a year, as well as discounts to numerous conferences and social events. Name: ________________________________ Date of Birth: ____________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: ______________________________ Email: __________________________________ Please indicate your preferred payment method and rate (circle one only) Waged Cheque or PO made payable to the Fabian Society £31 Direct Debit - fill in mandate below £29 Special New Member Offer - fill in the mandate below £5

Unwaged £14 £13 £5

After your first year of membership costing just £5, the relevant full direct debit rate shown above will apply. _______________________________________________________________________________________ Instruction to your bank or building society to pay Direct Debits Originators Identification Number 971666 To the Manager: _______________________________ bank/building society Branch address: ___________________________________________________________________ Account Holder’s name: _______________________________ Account Number: ________________________________ Sort Code: ________________________________ Please pay the Fabian Society Direct Debits from the account detailed on this instruction subject to the safeguards assured by the Direct Debit Guarantee. The Direct Debit Guarantee This guarantee is offered by all banks and building societies that take part in the Direct Debit Scheme. The efficiency and security of the Scheme is monitored and protected by your own bank or building society. If the amounts to be paid or the payment dates change you will be told at least 14 days in advance of any change. If an error is made by the Fabian Society or by your bank or building Society, you are guaranteed a full and immediate refund from your branch of the paid amount. You can cancel a Direct Debit at any time by writing to your bank or building society. Please send a copy of your letter to the Fabian Society. Banks and building societies may not accept Direct Debit instructions for some types of accounts.

Signature: ___________________________________

Date:___________________________________

Please return this whole form to: Membership, The Fabian Society, 11 Dartmouth Street, London, SW1H 9BN Tel: 0207 227 4900 Fax: 0207 976 7153