Anticipations - Summer 2010 by Young Fabians

YOUNG FABIANS

ANTICIPATIONS Volume 13, Issue 4 | Summer 2010

? Where now for Labour? Leadership candidates Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, David Miliband and Ed Miliband set out their stalls...

CONTENTS Summer 2010 Volume 13, Issue 4

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

6 10 12 13

The Young Fabian Interview Labour Leadership candidates

The Young Fabian Essay Ben Page and Helen Coombs

The New Recruits Pamela Nash MP, Rachel Reeves MP, Emma Reynolds MP

When hope won the day Sam Tarry

Lessons from London Christine Quigley

Where were the women? Preth Rao

Where now for reform? Willie Sullivan

A view from Progress Richard Angell A view from Compass Gavin Hayes REGULARS

REFLECTIONS ON THE ELECTION

Our questions to... Oona King

SOCIETY NEWS

10 of the Best... Labour moments Paul Richards

Focus on... The TV Debates Alastair Stewart, Gloria De Piero MP

Top Ten Tips... for Labour’s fightback John Prescott

Published by: The Fabian Society 11 Dartmouth Street London SW1H 9BN T: 0207 227 4900 F: 0207 976 7153 Printed by: Caric Press Ltd 525 Ringwood Road Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 9AQ

Report from the PDGs Adrian Prandle

Young Fabian campaigning Vincenzo Rampulla

Reflections from the network Candidates Network members

Anticipations, like all publications of the Fabian Society, and the Young Fabians, represents not the collective view of the Society, but only the views of the individuals whose articles it comprises. The responsibility of the Society is limited to approving its publications as worthy of consideration within the Labour movement. © YOUNG FABIANS 2010 www.fabian-society.org.uk www.youngfabians.org.uk

The editor would like to thank all contributors as well as all members of the Young Fabian Executive Committee. With special thanks to Alex Baker.

Images used in this publication are royalty-free or are Creative Commons licensed. Copyright remains the author’s own.

FROM THE EDITOR

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

Policy alone isn’t enough; the Labour Party must rediscover its driving mission

ike most Young Fabians I came of age politically under a Labour government. From my first opportunity to vote in the 2001 General Election, to standing for Parliament in the last one, Labour have been in power. For many of my generation, opposition is less a distant memory than someone else’s memory. A throwback to a time of militancy and long suicide notes, when the Labour Party debated and the Tory Party ruled. Labour’s return to the opposition benches will no doubt be met by infighting and recriminations. While we must understand what went wrong, we must also learn from the factionalism of the 80s and avoid the worst excesses of introspection. The coalition’s recent regressive budget serves as a pertinent reminder of why the country needs Labour back in power as soon as possible. Those that we represent cannot wait another eighteen years for a Labour government. However, it is crucial that we do not let the mistakes of the past stop us engaging in meaningful reflection for the future. Let’s be clear: we lost the last General Election conclusively. That the Tories failed to secure a working majority should not mask the fact that we gained the lowest proportion of the vote since 1983. Our party is in need of root and branch reform and Young Fabian members have a crucial role to play in shaping that new direction. We must use the

leadership race to renew our movement and rediscover what the Labour Party stands for. To do that we must first understand why we lost the election. That means learning not only from what went wrong but also from what went right. Labour made incredible gains in Barking and Dagenham, ousting the BNP from the council and humiliating Nick Griffin in the process. As HOPE not Hate organiser Sam Tarry argues in this edition, sustained targeted grassroots campaigning can be devastatingly effective. This was equally true in other parts of London as Labour regained control of councils across the City including Ealing, Camden and Islington. London Young Labour Chair Christine Quigley is right to highlight the important role that strong, highly localised campaigns played in these elections. However, despite these notable successes, the overall picture was deeply concerning. As new Labour MP Emma Reynolds points out, the skilled working class, who make up a fifth of the electorate, left us in droves. South of the Severn to The Wash, as Progress Deputy Director Richard Angell notes, we held only 10 seats out of a possible 209. We lost hard working Labour MPs up and down the country and we now, as Compass General Secretary Gavin Hayes highlights, face the very real threat of a long spell in opposition at the hands of the first coalition government since the war. So what went wrong?

First and foremost we failed to offer real change in what was always going to be a ‘change election’. As many of the leadership candidates rightly argue in this edition, Labour is at its best when it is a radical force for change. Yet far too often in recent years we tried to hedge our bets and in so doing fell between two stools. We were tough enough on the banks to earn the wrath of the City but failed to take the bold steps required to convince the public that we understood their anger. We took action on MPs’ expenses but came too late to the wider political reforms needed to regain public trust. Worst of all we became managers and technocrats who seemed more concerned with process than with a driving Labour mission. In many ways New Labour was right to reject the dogma of the 1980s in favour of the mantra of ‘what works’. However, while pragmatism was crucial to our electability, at times it led us astray. From the minimum wage to civil partnerships, we were at our most successful when we allowed our values to lead us. That is the real lesson of the election. To renew our party we must go back to first principles and articulate our values afresh in a way that resonates with those we seek to govern. Only then can we regain public confidence and build the coalition that will bring us back to power. James Green Anticipations Editor

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

FROM THE CHAIR David Chaplin Chair, Young Fabians

On the future of the Young Fabians and Labour

his edition of Anticipations will be sent out to a record high group of Young Fabian members. We have seen our numbers grow every day since May 6th. The Fabian Society membership is increasingly dominated by Young Fabians and nearly half of the new members to the Fabian Society since the election now come from the under 31 section of Society and therefore qualify as Young Fabians. These are exciting times for the next generation of progressive Labour activists. It’s a shame that it has taken the massive electoral defeat of the Labour Party for the progressive youth to mobilise and join the Labour movement through the Fabian Society. But as Chair of the Young Fabians I now intend to put that commitment from our newest members to good use. I want all our members to feel that they have come to the right place to effect real change and I commit to giving every Young Fabian member a voice; firstly in our Society; but secondly in the Labour movement. At the Young Fabian executive’s July meeting we voted in a set of radical and exciting reforms which will do just that. You’ll hear more about this in the next couple of weeks but the executive has decided to dramatically expand the number of local Young Fabian groups and, to support that growth, has proposed to create a dedicated space on the executive for representatives of our new local branches. For too long the process of nomination and election to the Young Fabian executive has been confusing and off-putting to our

members. The current executive voted overwhelmingly at our July meeting to completely open-up this process and publish a new ‘how-to guide’ on our website for Young Fabian members who are interested in standing for election to the executive. We’ll also be holding special events throughout the year where current executive members will share their experiences and advice with Young Fabian members to encourage them to stand for election. We recognise that we need to broaden our pool of talent and we want all our members outside of London to be supported in their work at a local level in the Fabian Society. We’ve seen some brilliant efforts this past year by local activists such as Sam Bacon in Manchester and the reforms we’ve just approved aim to encourage more people like Sam to set up their own Young Fabian branches across the UK. This change is an organic development of the Young Fabians. The progressive youth movement is agitating for change and, as a member of the Young Fabians, you are ideally placed to take part. Now more than ever there are opportunities for you to get involved in our work and shape the direction of Labour Party policy. As a Young Fabian member you get an extra vote in the Labour Party leadership election. The jointly hosted Young Fabian hustings in London in June will hopefully be followed by online and outside of London events through August and September, so watch this space for more details. The reforms taking place in the Young

Fabians are also part of a wider need and desire for reform within the Labour movement. The Party can sometimes seem like an out of shape machine which is not fit for purpose in the world of 21st century campaigning. The Party needs to adapt and react to our electoral defeat. It needs to realise that Labour supporters, member and activists are all looking for different ways to get involved and that we should think of new ways to facilitate that enthusiasm. Not simply asking people to come a long to branch meetings or CLP AGMs. This challenge has been recognised by some of the leadership candidates and the Young Fabians have been asked by the Party to start a unique Policy Development Group to look specifically at the issue of Labour Party reform. You can find out more about this by looking at the Policy Development Group pages on our website. Finally, I’d like to encourage all Young Fabian members who have thought about getting involved but who have felt unsure about how to contribute to get in touch with the executive in the coming weeks. The Fabian Society and the Young Fabians will be asking for nominations for election to their executive committees in July and August and it is vital that a strong field of

candidates come forward for those elections. If you have questions about the process please get in touch with me. I look forward to speaking with as many members as possible about our reforms and also how to reform the Labour Party in the run up to our party conference in September.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

REFLECTIONS ON THE LAST EDITION

THE FIRST INTERNET ELECTION? The Spring edition of Anticipations discussed the impact of the internet on politics. We have invited two contributors to that edition to share their reflections on what many billed as the first internet election.

On the impact of the internet on the General Election

ALEX SMITH EDITOR, LABOURLIST

n the spring edition of Anticipations, I wrote about the Left’s impressive gains on the Conservatives in the vital online sphere during the previous year. But in spite of those movements, and further interesting work during the short campaign , the 2010 ballot was never going to be the first internet election so many pundits craved. In the end, this election was still driven by more traditional communication techniques: television and boot leather. That said, and contrary to popular mythology, Labour did understand the key truism of online campaigning better than the Conservatives: that online interaction should enable offline activism. While the successes are partly intangible, they were nonetheless significant. Douglas Alexander’s ‘word of mouth’ strategy was realised through targeted, issuesbased email which spoke to progressives not necessarily connected to the party about what was at stake. The result was that 500,000 voters were reached in the last weeks of the campaign -- and 100,000 contacts were made every day in the final week before May 6th. Labour activists responded in kind. LabourList, Progress and Compass’ joint

David v Goliath grassroots campaign raised the money to furnish marginal seat CLPs with thousands of leaflets. Hope not Hate harnessed Blue State Digital technology to unleash a ground campaign that decimated the BNP in East London. Unions Together members shared harrowed memories of the last Tory government. And when Gordon Brown gave the most impassioned speech of his career at CitizensUK, Labour’s online army marched into action -- spreading the word with pride and ensuring the clip was seen 50,000 times in the final hours before polls opened. For a while, it even felt like a movement. With Labour’s online activists gaining more confidence in their ability to shape the agenda, how we respond to the coalition will be important. It’s worth getting involved now, as it’s likely that 2015 will be the first internet election.

KERRY MCCARTHY MP MP FOR BRISTOL EAST

think it’s fair to say that the internet

didn’t play as big a part in the short campaign as some might have expected. The campaign was dominated above all by the leaders’ TV debates and how the mainstream media covered them. In particular the media’s role in stoking up ‘Cleggmania’ ended up being a major

distraction from other issues which should have led the news. Social media did however play its part, for example with Facebook being used to sign up hordes of new Lib Dem members as Cleggmania took off, and, in the immediate post-election period, with campaign groups like 38 Degrees urging Labour to sign a deal with the Liberal Democrats. I found I didn’t use social media as much as I thought I would during the short campaign, and other candidates have told me this too. For all our good intentions of daily blogging and Facebook updates, when it came to it, we were far too busy out there on the doorstep. New media did play an important role in the long campaign, however. It wasn’t just the online spoofs, but also the use of Facebook and Twitter to mobilise Labour activists. We now have a new generation of MPs who made full use of new media in their campaigns. Now that we’re in opposition, I think new media will really come of age. People want to know what’s being done by this government, pieced together in backroom deals, in their name. We can come together online to hold this government to account. Douglas Alexander described the election campaign as ‘the word of mouth’ election. This is going to be the ‘word of mouth’ opposition.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

> THE YOUNG FABIAN INTERVIEW

LEADING LABOUR Nick Maxwell, Schools and Networks Officer

n politics, as in life, it’s not always about winning - it’s about how you respond to failure. This edition of Anticipations brings together the Labour leadership candidates who are vying to lead the process of renewal for the Party. They hope to shape how we learn and grow from the experience of electoral defeat and how we rebuild a sense of purpose and enthusiasm. We’ve asked our leadership hopefuls three big questions - What are the lessons of the past thirteen years, what is their vision is for Britain and why they should be leader of the Labour Party. The challenge of renewal is never easy. And, in many ways, the 2010 General Election offers a confusing context for a leadership election. The Labour Party was defeated, yes. But it was hardly the crushing hammer blow the 2009 polls anticipated, or the Tories expected. Indeed there was much to celebrate - an increased share of the vote in Scotland, keeping key Tory and LibDem target seats across the country, and impressive local government wins. However, while the election result didn’t annihilate the Labour Party, complacency about the need to learn the lessons of our defeat would miss a fantastic and rare opportunity to do things better, to re-imagine our party and to take the fight to the coalition with energy and determination. And there’s appetite for it. In the week after the General Election almost 10,000 people joined the Labour Party. Fabian Society membership has likewise spiked. The jolt of defeat and horror of the realities of the coalition has woken our support – people who want to see genuine compassion and fairness in our politics, respect and concern for the most vulnerable and the instincts of the Left to prevail. For those that sit on the front line of coalition cuts, for those who see the damage that lack of investment and a reliance on the private sector provision can have, for those that abhor taxes on the poorest – the time is short to articulate a credible opposition to the Lib Con cuts. Who is up for the challenge? Who has learned the lessons of the thirteen years of Labour government and of electoral defeat? Who can meet the expectations of a new generation of Labour supporters? You decide.

DIANE ABBOTT

Diane has served as Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington since 1987. She was the first black woman ever to be elected to the British Parliament.

ED BALLS Ed is MP for Morley and Outwood and Shadow Education Secretary. He was Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury during Labour’s first two terms.

ANDY BURNHAM Andy is MP for Leigh and Shadow Health Secretary. Over the past 25 years he has represented the Party at every level, from CLP Secretary to Secretary of State.

DAVID MILIBAND David is MP for South Shields and Shadow Foreign Secretary. He was head of the Prime Minister’s policy unit during Labour’s first term.

ED MILLIBAND Ed is MP for Doncaster North and Shadow Climate Change Secretary. He was Special Advisor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during Labour’s first two terms.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

Q. What are the lessons of the past thirteen years? DA: There are a number of lessons to be learnt. One is what a

our eye off the ball in education and anti-social behaviour. We didn’t think seriously about the way we do politics. The corrosive culture of briefing and counter briefing put good people off.

EM: The biggest lesson of the last 13 years is that we are at our best

when we put our values to the fore. That is what we did in 1997 and it led not just to big victory but also to great Labour achievements like the minimum wage. Our difficulties began when we lost that sense of direction and purpose and became more like managers. We became technocrats and lost our willingness to change, and fell into the trap of thinking that the economic model that was right for 1997 was still right a decade and more later. As a result, by the time of the 2010 election, too many people were telling us that they didn’t know what we stood for and didn’t think we had the answers to the problems of today. This leadership election is our chance to put that right. To do that we have to rediscover the will to apply our Labour values to the priorities of Britain.

determined Labour government can do using the resources of the state to change people’s lives. But another is the need to listen to your own party. Many of New Labour’s mistakes would have been avoided if they had only listened to their own members, supporters and their own MPs. If the government had listened to its own supporters, it would never have abolished the 10p tax rate or gone to war in Iraq. We must also learn the danger of too much central control. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown spoke at public meetings in London to insist that electing Ken Livingstone as mayor would be a disaster. In fact he was able to defeat the New Labour machine and become a hugely popular mayor. But, because they could not control Ken Livingstone, they feared him.

EB: Like most party members, I’m very proud of what we achieved.

What is your vision for

But too many working people were not sure they could support us this time. They thought we just didn’t ‘get it’ on jobs, immigration, housing and tuition fees. Too often our policies and language suggested we didn’t understand that the 21st century was not offering them a fair deal. And we got some things wrong. Who can now doubt that, despite the tougher measures we brought in, financial regulation was not tough enough? What we did get right is that you cannot have a strong economy without the right role for government. That means a new industrial policy to support growth in every part of the country; but also a minimum wage and proper protections for agency workers, all vital for fairness in the face of new global economic pressures.

AB: There has been much to be proud of during the past 13 years.

Just because we lost this General Election should not devalue all of those achievements. We did, however, begin to take our supporters for granted. There are few things more difficult for politicians than admitting they were wrong. But we were. We were wrong not to listen to the concerns of our supporters. We were wrong not to take those concerns seriously and respond accordingly. I share the responsibility for that as a senior Party figure. Now I want to learn from those errors, to reconnect with our members and supporters and galvanise the Party into the powerhouse it can and should be. All six declared leadership candidates agree that we need to listen to our members and supporters. But we need to do more than that: we have to act on what we have heard.

DM:

Labour in power changed people’s lives. Our first job in opposition is to stand up for our legacy. But there are lessons to be learnt. One of my biggest frustrations was that we failed to renew our movement. Too often we were a party machine, rightly focused on winning elections, but sometimes casual about involving others. The command and control leadership, necessary for the 80s, is anachronistic now. And it is young people who are leading the way, strengthening our movement from the bottom up. But just as we didn’t renew our party, we didn’t refresh our policies. We were late in the game on climate change and political reform. And we took

Britian? DA: Part

of my vision for Britain is that we can all be proud that people can come from all over the world to live here. So I am concerned by the commentary by some leadership contenders that implies that immigration lost us the election. There is no doubt that it was a concern. But in constituencies like mine in Hackney, where there is a very big and established immigrant population, I heard hardly anything about it. Invariably, the fewer immigrants there were in an area, the more the issue came up. This is partly because anti-immigrant feeling is fundamentally a proxy for other issues. It reflects a concern about lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs, low wages and general working class insecurity. We need to deal with these issues, rather than use language that risks making immigrants scapegoats. I want a Britain that is full of hope and possibility for all of our citizens.

EB: My vision is the opposite of David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s

neo-liberal coalition. The thing that unifies Clegg and Cameron is that they believe the state is a problem and that the liberation of individual potential happens through liberating the individual from state intervention. I believe in a Britain where we show how we can deliver more high-skilled and green jobs, and narrow inequality – not just leave people to sink or swim. That means actively promoting fair chances – not just equal opportunities – and tackling vested interests to do so. We need to understand the vital role government must play and honestly recognise the limits to markets in both the private and public sectors. We will not win the next election in seminars, party forums or university halls. But we will win if we persuade the public to campaign for us on a vision for the future that is credible, green and fair to all.

AB:

Opportunity should not be a postcode lottery: it should be available to all. Yet there are still too many for whom opportunities are

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010 out of reach. I want Labour to become the People’s Party once again. We must move forward on the national minimum wage and develop it into a real living wage. Unemployment is the worst blight on equality, bringing with it the worst health outcomes and the worst prospects for those born into jobless households. For the vast majority, it is not a lifestyle choice, it is a downward spiral from which there appears to be no escape. That is why I am fighting to save the Future Job Fund, which offers real opportunity to young people. The new coalition government does not see this fund as a priority, but without it we run the risk of returning to an era when unemployment is inevitable from the time someone leaves education until they draw their state pension.

DM:

During this leadership campaign, I want to listen and understand. I want to find out from people why we lost and how we can meet the challenges we face. During the meetings I have had already, there were some clear themes. People are saying they want to have more power over their lives. They are saying they want to feel secure in the face of uncertain economic times. They are saying they want to regain a sense of belonging and live in communities where everyone lives out their rights and responsibilities. People want to see

whether we have learned the right lessons of the economic crisis, not just that we need government to anticipate market failure and try to prevent it, but also that our economy needs to be rebalanced between financial services and other industries. Whether we have understood the degree of alienation with the political system after the MPs’ expenses crisis.

EM: My vision for Britain is of a country with a just economy, a fair society and an environmentally sustainable way of life. Economic justice is about an economy that works for everyone not just a few. Our economy has been good at creating jobs in the last decade but not good enough at ensuring that we create good jobs at good wages. We must change that and further develop an active industrial policy. Fairness is at the heart of our party’s mission. Fairness is not only about the distribution of resources according to need but also about a commitment to fairness based on contribution. That means rewarding work, which is why I have launched a campaign for the living wage. But the strength of society comes from how we look after each other as well. That is why we must emphasise issues of time with family, care for the elderly and community cohesion.

Why should you be leader? DA: I bring to the role life experiences that are a pointer to modern Britain. I am a well-paid MP but I am also a single mother. So I have a better idea of some of the struggles millions of our fellow citizens face than the other candidates. The new leader will need to revive

and rebuild the party. I have exhaustive experience of the party from top to bottom. No other candidate has my experience at every level of the party. Precisely because I am in touch with the grassroots, on the big issues that mattered to them like Iraq, I called it right. Finally, in the age of 24 hour news we need a leader that can empathise and communicate. I have a proven ability to do that. All the other candidates are ‘continuity’ candidates. But the Labour Party needs to build on the best of the past, but also move on. I am the candidate best

placed to help the party ‘turn the page’.

EB: I don’t think I’m the only person who can do this job. And

I will back whoever wins 100%. But I think we need a leader who understands the big global economic forces and how we need to respond; who doesn’t just listen but hears, acts and takes people with them; and who speaks the language of people, not politicians. Above all we need a leader who knows what they stand for, is rooted in the values of the Labour, co-op and trade union movements, and who understands that being a tough opposition are the three vital ingredients we need to win again. My track-record shows that I’m a decision-maker who’s made the right calls on big issues - on Bank of England independence, keeping Britain out of the Euro, or Haringey and Baby Peter. I’m a tireless campaigner who can win when the heat is on. And I’m a team player who’s backed by many people who have worked closely with me.

AB:

The Labour Party is in my blood. I am proud of our achievements and will fight to ensure our legacy is not trampled by the new government. But that does not mean I will dwell on the past.

Labour must be forward-thinking and open to new ideas. For too long we have been afraid to debate tough issues, with stage-management sometimes taking precedence over open discussion. I have more faith in our members than that, which is why I want members to be more involved in policy-making. Let me be clear: the Labour Party is not broken. That thousands of new members have joined since our election defeat is testament to the faith that people still have in us. I want to harness that and make our party stronger than ever, working with our members to ensure Labour listens and responds to their concerns. My values are Labour’s values: equality, fairness, progress.

DM: A leadership election is of course about leadership. We need to

elect a leader who can fire the imagination, unite different talents and be a credible Prime Minister. The process is important too. How we conduct ourselves over the coming months will show the public the sort of opposition we will be and whether or not we are a government in waiting. My leadership will be informed by my values. I am an idealist – about Britain, about political change. I believe that you judge a country by the condition of the weak not just the strong, that we are joined by humanity and self interest with people around the globe. I believe we need a market economy but not a market society. There are values beyond markets that it is our duty to nurture. I believe injustice is real but not inevitable, and it is the job of politics to attack it. As leader, I can bring Labour together and lead Labour to power.

EM: I believe that I have the values that can help us to win and the power to inspire people to join and support us in communities up and down Britain. If Labour is to win and govern effectively again, we will need a different recipe for the future to the one we provided in the past. I believe I am the candidate best able to chart that new course. I want to build on the best of the past but make sure we are not bound by old orthodoxies. I believe that people want a party and leader that stands for clear ideals and beliefs. I also believe that politics has the ability to inspire people. I believe I can reach out and communicate with people across the country, from whatever walk of life they come from. I have shown in manifesto meetings I have done throughout Britain an ability connect with people. I want to bring this to the leadership of the party and I believe I can.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

OUR QUESTIONS TO...

OONA KING Q.

Why did you join the Labour Party?

I joined when I was 14, so I really wanted to be a member. I was political from early on. I hated Margaret Thatcher and I strongly believed in social justice. I was a member of the United Nations Association too, and with a belief in internationalism, joining the Labour Party seemed like a natural compliment on the domestic front. Mind you, to return to Maggie, I wanted to see her ousted so much that without her I would never have wanted to be Prime Minister (which is how all political careers start isn’t it?). So she was an inspiration of sorts.

What are you most proud of?

There’s my two kids of course, but politically speaking it is getting rid of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT). CCT allowed employers to slash wages and employment benefits by forcing councils to consider the outsourcing of services. It was my Private Members Bill on employment rights and equalities that was incorporated into government legislation and outlawed CCT. At the time I was a backbencher and I think the experience also goes to show that you don’t need to be in the cabinet to achieve social change. That’s the same set of skills a London Mayor needs too – to persuade others to see your point of view.

is your top Q. What policy priority?

There’s a question. If I was choosing, I think that the London Mayor needs to focus their energy on tackling crime in London – but what we need is a new approach. My philosophy, if you such a grand word, is that prevention is better than cure. SHARONlikeCARR-BROWN

So I want to see family intervention to support mothers under pressure and proper opportunities for young people. I want internship schemes and apprenticeships to give young people of all backgrounds a chance to get professional and skilled jobs. Opportunity and a sense of purpose should lie just a few stops down the Tube line. Too often though, it does not.

Who is your political hero?

Sylvia Pankhurst, the suffragette. She was an East London woman, just like me (there’s a blue plaque outside Woodford tube station). She fought for women’s votes, but was always opposed to violence. And she was closely involved with the Labour Party in the early days – there was a close personal relationship with Keir Hardie I gather. Together they helped established the East London Federation of Suffragettes. And of course she eventually ended the absurdity that prevented women from voting from which we all benefit today. That was nearly 100 years ago, but there are still not enough women at the top of politics.

What is your vision for the future?

That’s easy. I want a fairer London and fairer Britain. To get there is a little more complex, but I believe we need to rethink how we do politics (and remember there’s a lot less money around). I’ve already talked about how I believe that prevention is better than cure when I talked about crime policy – but here’s two other principles. I think you will only improve public services by improving human relations – so, for example, community policy can only succeed when there is a genuine relationship of trust established between police and local residents. And, last but not least, we need to recognise that a modern democracy gives power to the people – across the board we need to give an increasingly sophisticated public more control. If we change our thinking, I think we can change Britain for good.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

THE NEW RECRU

Labour’s newsest MPs share their reflections on the General Election and their vision for the fut

PAMELA NASH MP AIRDRIE AND SHOTTS

wo months on since the most momentous General Election since 1997, and the full impact of the new coalition government is finally beginning to hit. It has come in waves, from when the results came in, seeing Cameron and Clegg grinning on the steps of Number 10, taking my seat on the opposition benches and most recently, seeing the most regressive Budget in living memory voted through. The first couple of weeks showed that a day is a long time in politics, never mind a

week. I woke up one morning as a new MP under a Labour Prime Minister and went to bed that night under the first coalition government since the Second World War. Prior to that depressing day I had spent every waking hour on the campaign trail. I achieved a bittersweet victory; winning

my seat in Airdrie and Shotts midst a spectacularly successful election campaign for Scottish Labour, whilst knowing that Labour had lost so many seats in England. It is an unusual position to be in, when your party has by far the largest share of the vote in Scotland, but is the only party in our fourparty system not to be in power. Whilst I am delighted to have become the Member of Parliament for the area where I have grown up (and, as far as I am led to believe, the first serving Young Fabian Executive member to become an MP!), I can only wish it was not under an SNP government at Holyrood and the Con-Dem coalition in Westminster. Overall we increased our share of the vote in Scotland by 2.5%. So why did we do so well north of the border but not in England? I believe it runs deeper than individual policy areas. Rather, we failed to engage with voters at a basic level; we lost votes from people who no longer felt Labour spoke for them. The Scottish and the Welsh have a powerful sense of national identity that the English feel they have to suppress. English patriotism has become a taboo subject as it has been confused with nationalism, but it is time to tackle this subject head-on. Anas Sarwar MP (Glasgow Central) suggested to me recently that we need to create “English Labour”. I couldn’t agree more. In England, our regional parties do a fantastic job; however they cannot provide the national

focus that ‘English Labour’ would. Thankfully, Labour did not enter into a ‘Progressive Coalition’ and have accepted that we lost the election. We now have a small window of opportunity this summer to examine where we went wrong before moving forward under a new leader. He or she will have to be that rare find of someone who is both a great opposition leader and who will be an excellent Prime Minister. Someone who has a vision for Britain, and can communicate it with ease to the electorate. I am confident we will get the right person for the job, and that this will be the new start our Party craves.

RACHEL REEVES MP LEEDS WEST

here is an emerging consensus in the party that Labour lost touch with the very people we should be

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

UITS

ture of the Party

there to serve. Our reputation for fairness was questioned by voters throughout the campaign – and we must respond to that. The family who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, but would not qualify for a council house wondered what we could offer. The mum who struggles to bring up her family on a single income but sees others claiming benefits and being almost as well off questioned whether we were on her side. We must listen to these people. Their hopes, fears, aspirations and stories tell us why we lost seats. In setting out our vision, we must recognise that our priorities and platform will be different from those offered in the past, as the challenges we face are different. Most clearly, we are in a new economic era. When we came to power in 1997, public services were crippled by underinvestment and it was clear and right that we responded with urgency. Today, our objectives of social justice, fairness and equality endure, but the ways we pursue them have to change. Our approach on the economy will be critical. The economic recovery, secured by Labour, was hard-won but fragile. The new government must ensure that in its hasty approach to spending cuts, it secures the recovery, and does not create a double dip recession - reducing the deficit with spending cuts is simply not enough. We

need to ensure a strong economic recovery that brings lasting jobs to our communities. But economic stability also requires balancing the budget as the recovery is secured. Labour must be the party that fights for social justice with fiscal responsibility. It will not be adequate to oppose all spending cuts and tax increases – we must be smarter than that. To be a strong, realistic and responsible opposition, we must support the new government when they get it right, but hold them to account when their policies risk the economic recovery or have a disproportionate impact on people on modest and middle incomes. In the longer-term, we must recognise that achieving the goal of fiscal consolidation will be painful, but that to have the opportunity to govern again, the public will require us to prove that we are more than the party of building excellent public services. We must develop a clear and coherent vision of how to achieve social justice while bringing down the deficit. We should be realistic about the challenges we face but confident about our values and priorities in addressing them. We must be the party that ensures social justice in an era of fiscal constraints. On the economy, more than anywhere else, we must present a vision of a more diverse, stronger and fairer economy to meet the hopes and aspirations of the British people.

EMMA REYNOLDS MP WOLVERHAMPTON NE

he Labour Party’s General Election slogan ‘A future fair for all’ sums up what went wrong for us in the campaign. Rightly or wrongly, we were

seen as a party who at worst didn’t care about fairness or at best failed to deliver it. Why should we be trusted to deliver fairness in the future when we hadn’t managed to do so in the last thirteen years of government? As experienced party campaigners, such

as Jack Straw and Liam Byrne, point out this feeling was particularly acute amongst our natural support base: the skilled working class. Known as C2s, they make up a fifth of the electorate. They fled from us in massive numbers. Time and time again, I heard the same complaint on the doorstep: we play by the rules, we work hard and we feel that we are no better off than our neighbours who don’t play by the rules, don’t work and live off the state. The recession highlighted and magnified these tensions. The competition for jobs and housing is even fiercer when high levels of unemployment and low growth rates further restrict these already finite resources. The debate about immigration must be set in this broader context. To be sure, the historic lack of investment in social

housing also exacerbated the problem. But in the end you can’t get round economics. Remember the 2005 General Election when the then Tory leader, Michael Howard, tried in vain to make immigration a big issue. The booming economy meant it simply didn’t get off the ground. So we failed to grasp the nettles of immigration and welfare dependency. We also lost our way in our approach to government. After thirteen years in power, we were the establishment and we were shackled by the trappings of power. To many, we appeared to stop listening. We were pessimists, not optimists - a brake on people’s aspirations rather than the means by which they might be fulfilled. We were seen as managers and technocrats, not politicians with values and objectives. We lacked a compelling overall narrative. As a result, no longer understood what Labour really stood for. A historic fourth term was never going to be easy to secure. But we shouldn’t let that blind us to our own failings. We did incredibly badly. We will only do better if we begin now upon a programme of deep and lasting renewal. The message is clear: we must look to the future and regain once more a sense of what Labour really stands for. Our next leader has a crucial role to play in leading the charge. Whoever is elected must be able to listen, speak in everyday language and give voice to people’s deepest aspirations somebody we can all see as our next Prime Minister. What we do now will determine whether we win the next General Election. We can’t afford to get it wrong.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

AFTER THE ELECTION Richard Angell Deputy Director, Progress

On Labour’s lessons after the General Election

ith an amazing effort by Labour party members, an excellent set of candidates and brilliant new campaign infrastructure at the General Election we were able to deprive the Tories of an outright majority. Everyone in the Labour family should be congratulated for their part in this - the organisation was better, key seats defied their critics, initiatives like Unite4Labour were exceptional and member-led innovations like #MobMonday gave an enthusiasm to our campaign. But despite this not insignificant victory Labour polled a 1983 share of the vote and now has a 1992 level of Parliamentary representation - a clear loss and vote of no confidence from the British public. For a short while at least there was a slight euphoria in the party - excited that we did better than expected in particular seats, that more volunteers turned out and that Parliament has seen 64 excellent new Labour MPs join the PLP. Election coordinator, Douglas Alexander MP, described the party mood at the recent Progress annual conference as people in a car watching it crash, expecting to die and coming out of it with only broken legs. There is a natural relief and sense of joy that despite the pain we live to fight another day. Sobering. So why did Labour lose? Let’s be clear: it was not because of New Labour or because Labour was too ‘rightwing’ - we lost votes to the Tories partly to our right not smaller parties on our left. It was not because we were bad in government and didn’t achieve many of our political aims. There are obviously things we got wrong and areas

we came to too late (Peter Mandelson’s industrial activism for one) but we were not a bad government. It was ultimately because it was unclear to the British public (and much of our membership) what we stood for, who we were fighting for and the kind of Britain Labour wanted to build. Despite excellent policies in our manifesto, there was no overriding narrative about the future of Britain or our response to the Tories’ claim of ‘broken Britain’. We had no offer on crime for people, little aspiration for their kids, and a pledge card of slogans rather than policies. To its authors’ credit there were 24 examples of Co-op party policies on mutualising the economy, public services and important parts of British life but no conversation with the voters about ‘people power’ and the values-based democratisation of our society that we stood for. We also have to wake up to our losses in the South. We held only 10 seats south of The Wash to the Severn, out of a possible 209. The White Van Man and his family, otherwise known as C2s, left us in their droves and said to campaigners on the doorstep that we didn’t share their idea of fairness. It was on New Labour’s founding principle that we lost so many - we forgot that, as the voice of the many rather than the few, the Labour party must be in tune with working people’s hopes and aspirations: the idea that their kids’ futures will be better than their own and that with hard work everyone can succeed. What is exciting for Labour is that we are down but not out. We valued being in government because it changed so much of what we cared about - the creation

of a minimum wage, international debt reduction and better schools, hospitals and public services for all - and we now want to be back. None of us are going to sit idle and watch the Lib-Con coalition rip the soul from our public services and turn back the great advances we have made on human rights, equality and social justice. There is great hope - not in the election of a Green MP as some in our ranks suggest - but on our own benches new MPs are showing Labour at its best both in the chamber and in their constituencies. In the 2010 intake are some excellent new MPs. Our very own Stephen Twigg returns to the House. Rachel Reeves, John Woodcock, Liz Kendall, Jonathan Reynolds along with Stella Creasy, Kate Green, Emma Reynolds and many more hold great hope for our party. We won back Bethnal Green from Respect, held Wirral South and defied the odds in Bolton West, Liverpool Wavertree and Edinburgh South. Those who have written us off should beware. We must, however, be vigilant. Hopi Sen has recently written that every time we have lost power bar one, the following General Election has seen yet further losses. This should act as a sobering reality for everyone. But the fundamentals are good - we are not fractious and divided, we have hope and aspiration for ourselves and our voters, and hopefully the leadership election will conclude with a revived Labour Party and a clear vision for Britain. Progress will do all we can to help the Labour party flourish and stay true to those who need us to win and want us to do better.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

AFTER THE ELECTION Gavin Hayes General Secretary, Compass

On Labour’s lessons after the General Election ollowing the election defeat nobody

Prime Minister the country ever had’? Just

appealing to people. The electorate like the idea of co-operation, of the two parties

and Clegg running the show, Labour in opposition could find themselves in the same conundrum that William Hague did in 1997 when faced with Tony Blair – what was the point of being leader of the Conservative Party when faced across the dispatch box by ‘the best Conservative

like it or not it could be widely appealing to voters from lower and middle incomes. Another thing we mustn’t underestimate is the powerful message the coalition has sent out in terms of a new politics. The shear choreography of the coalition over the past few weeks could be hugely

based philosophy and in so doing create a new hope for British politics. Only then will Labour stand a fighting chance of winning the next election in five years time. The alternative is to face the very real threat of being condemned as a serious political force to the history books.

should be in any doubt about the massive challenge that now faces Labour in transforming itself and reconnecting with the progressive majority in order to stand any chance of re-election. The Party now needs to recognise the gravity of the situation it now faces and wake up the new political reality. Be in no doubt, this is a dangerous and precarious moment. We simply cannot afford to be complacent about the new Con-Dem government, or allow ourselves to become deluded into thinking the coalition will not last the next five years. It is not a given that this will be a weak coalition of convenience as some have predicted and there is no inevitability that it will breakdown any time soon. Labour needs to quickly grasp the fact that Clegg has done for Cameron, what the Cameroons only months ago could only dream of. He has helped them to complete the modernisation of the Conservative Party. As a government they can now effectively present themselves as a moderate ‘progressive’ Liberal Conservative Party. Indeed it was Cameron himself who said in the Rose Garden of Number 10 that he had “always been a Liberal Conservative.” All of this poses potentially big problems for Labour to reassert itself as the progressive party. With Cameron

as Blair constantly tacked to the right, so Cameron and Clegg will (and already have) tacked to Labour’s left on many issues. So the challenging question must be posed – how can you be the progressive party when both Cameron and Clegg do ‘progressive’ things? The point being that this could suck the life out of Labour in opposition, so Labour needs to think carefully about how they effectively deal with the new threat. The other mistake we should not make is to allow ourselves to fall into the trap of assuming that the new government will quickly become unpopular. We should prepare ourselves for the fact that the coalition could turn out to be quite popular. Particularly given the fact that expectations were so dreadfully low in any case (compared to in 1997). In their pursuit to maintain power the new government will do populist and progressive things: on civil liberties such as on freedom of information and abolishing ID cards and on democratic reform such as the referendum on the electoral system. Other plans such as increasing capital gains tax to increase the threshold at which people pay income tax will almost certainly be popular. Indeed it could be for the Cameron government what Right to Buy was for the Thatcher government. He will argue he’s ‘recapitalised the poor’ and whether we

being forced to work together. For voters after the expenses crisis and with all the planned political reforms, this at least looks and feels like a new politics. Then and most alarming of all for Labour there are the new government’s plans to reduce the number of seats by 10% in Parliament. As Compass predicted in our report published in September 2009 The Last Labour Government if this goes ahead it could make it incredibly hard for Labour to secure a majority again any time soon as this will hit Labour seats the hardest. So this Con-Dem coalition needs to be treated as a real and serious threat to the very existence of the Labour Party. That’s not to say that the challenge before us is in any way insurmountable and there are plenty of unknowns and opportunities that could play to Labour’s advantage. But it does mean that Labour needs to quickly grasp the real seriousness of the situation and recognise how much the party now needs to change. Let’s not, through complacency, find ourselves in opposition for another 18 years. The idea expressed by some that we just need one more heave will simply not wash. Instead Labour must now engage and embark on a serious process of renewal to restore itself as the natural home of progressive voters with a coherent values

FOCUSTHE ON... FROM GRASSROOTS

WHEN HOPE WON THE DAY Sam Tarry Young Labour Chair and HOPE not hate campaign organiser

On the successful fight to defeat the BNP

t seems unimaginable that only a few weeks or months ago both the Labour Party and Searchlight thought that in Barking and Dagenham we could be faced with Britain’s first ever fascist controlled council and its £250 million a year budget. A victory here would have eclipsed anything the party had achieved until now and opened the door to future gains in local government, starting with the all-out elections in Stoke-on-Trent in 2011. But the BNP was never going to get its own way. Even before Griffin announced his decision to stand for the Barking Parliamentary seat, the local Labour Party had begun to regroup. Stunned by the BNP gains in 2006, both Barking and the new Dagenham and Rainham constituency Labour Parties were fighting hard to reconnect with voters. Quietly but steadily the two CLPs were leafleting, canvassing and generally talking to voters in a way they had not done for many years. By election day both CLPs had over 20,000 identified Labour voters to turn out. HOPE not hate had been organised on the ground in the community for well over a year before these elections, having been active locally since 2005 when the BNP won their first council by-election in the borough. That intense process over a year and a half in the build up to May 2010 focussed on building the networks, the relationships, and mapping out the community to a level and depth that no other local organisation has done. Every civic society organisation from trade

unions, churches and mosques, to NGO’s, was contacted and mapped so that each key ‘mover and shaker’ was known, had been written to, met with one-to-one and shown why the campaign was so important to them, the people they worked with or represented and how they could most easily get involved. Regular campaign activities and networks were built and tested during the European elections and before – laying the foundations, building the support and trust to deliver a knock-out blow to the BNP in 2010. It was this longer-term work which allowed HOPE not hate to turn the local elections, in particular, into a referendum on the BNP. The response from our supporters across London was phenomenal. Since opening our Dagenham office in mid January we estimate that over 1,500 different people got involved in our campaign, with over 1,000 active in the final three weeks. Others helped too. Hundreds of people took part in online telephone canvassing which resulted in thousands of phone calls to identify anti-BNP voters in the borough, and thousands donated to the campaign. But those headline statistics, although demonstrating probably the largest non party political campaign grassroots campaign in UK history (because it wasn’t just Barking and Dagenham that HOPE not hate organised on this scale – but Stoke-ontrent, Burnley, Sandwell, Oldham, Epping Forest and many other areas), do not show that groundwork and strategy that took the

BNP apart at every level. Research commissioned at the beginning of the year showed that Griffin was viewed suspiciously by local people, even among BNP supporters. He was seen as more extreme than the local BNP, largely because of his National Front background, and his decision to stand in Barking while an MEP in the North West was perceived as an attempt to exploit local people. In a series of localised tabloid newspapers we used researched evidence based targeted messaging to hammer the BNP – with local people coming on board to deliver the community tabloids in their local areas. The community tabloid papers included positive stories from the community about positive things that were happening and that local people were achieving. Flying in the face of the BNP’s ‘it’s all gone to the dogs’ messages. Towards the end of the campaign we hit the BNP hard on the appalling performance of its councillors. We produced an ‘apology leaflet’, customised to each ward that had had a BNP councillor. The deliberately confusing headline and ambiguous appearance appeared to have the desired effect. It was read by BNP supporters and they were shocked at what they saw. But the HOPE not hate campaign was far more sophisticated than to rely only on leaflets. We dissected the electorate and particularly targeted those groups least likely to support the BNP. They included women, black and Asian voters and older voters, and we produced specific material for them. We employed a worker to focus on the faith communities, particularly the black Christian population, and spread the

FROM THE GRASSROOTS

message of HOPE around the churches and mosques. On the final Sunday of the campaign we distributed a leaflet that opened up into a full colour poster depicting 15 local church pastors and vicars calling for people to turn out and vote. We spoke at over 50 churches including one in Barking with a congregation of 2,000 people. We pushed Churches to get organised to distribute our Christian focussed material amongst the congregations and in the areas that church members lived. We had tremendous support from the Church of England who helped develop our faith networks and open doors in the community for our faith organiser. The Bishop of Barking even spoke at large key church congregations as part of our voter registration drives and awareness building campaigns. Indeed the Imam of Barking Mosque got involved and fronted up our Muslim community direct mail campaign which was cited by the community as having a huge impact after the bright green, crescent fronted mailing landed on people’s doormats explaining exactly why the BNP was such a threat to Muslims. Our local campaigners and activists were boosted by people who came from around London and further afield to be part of the campaign. Over 250 people from Barking and Dagenham itself got involved. For those that couldn’t make it to help locally in Stoke, Barking or one of the dozen or so key priority areas nationally people across the UK supported us through donations. An amazing 4,000 people gave almost £80,000 online since the beginning of the year. In total we delivered over 350,000 newspapers, booklets and leaflets in the borough. We put three tabloid newspapers

through every door in the borough. Every woman received a 12-page booklet and every black or Asian voter was contacted at least twice. Pensioners were written to in another direct mailing from a war veteran and at least nine pieces of HOPE not hate literature were distributed in our key target wards. The targeted mailing to women identified in our research and field campaigning over many years as a key antiBNP ‘bloc’ to mobilise during an election campaign - had an incredible impact. Written by women, for women, it got the BNP so rattled that their entire campaign strategy in the last weeks of the campaign was blown off course as they instead decided to put out campaign material just attacking HOPE not hate. The BNP did run a strange campaign, really folding under the pressure we were able to mount on them. Rather than concentrating on council issues, be it Labour’s failures or its own policies, the BNP adopted a scattergun approach which had no obvious theme or consistent thread. This failure to stay on track was most evident in the BNP’s response to the HOPE not hate campaign. Virtually every leaflet contained some attack on us and as the campaign drew to a close it became more hysterical. We were overjoyed. Not only did it prove that we were having an impact, but their final leaflet attacking us rather than putting forward the BNP’s own policies must have meant nothing to the electorate. Worse still was the choice of candidates and where they were placed. The BNP could only muster 34 candidates for the council’s 51 seats. Barnbrook had tried to submit more but several prospective candidates were ruled out for not being on the electoral

register. The BNP had also moved in a number of candidates from other parts of London. While this was done to ensure it had some politically experienced people in the event of winning control of the council, this undermined its attempts to portray itself as a local party. Worse still was that one of the candidates was Jeffrey Marshall, the central London BNP organiser who last year had applauded the death of David Cameron’s disabled son. This was an absolute gift and one for which we really went after the BNP. In the final few days of the campaign it was clear that the BNP was failing. Although the party was putting a lot of activists out onto the streets there was a sense of desperation. There was no focus and clearly the far-right party had little idea who its voters were. The BNP was campaigning in areas where it clearly had little chance of winning and its activists were getting more aggressive on the streets. BNP Councillor Bob Bailey’s violent attack on an Asian youth was clearly the culmination of their despair. The hard work paid off and the BNP was roundly defeated. In many wards, including some of the BNP’s key targets, the margin of victory between the BNP and Labour was huge. All this was possible because of a core team of HOPE not hate organisers and volunteers who worked tirelessly, often 15 hours a day, seven days a week. The BNP didn’t have this passion. Their message of hate failed to inspire. In the end they resorted to violence and thuggery. As defeat was handed down to them Griffin angrily announced that “London was finished”. The reality is that it could instead be Griffin and the BNP that are finished.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

OF THE BEST

MOMENTS IN LABOUR HISTORY Paul Richards

The NHS goes live: 5th July 1948 Labour’s greatest achievement is the NHS, created after a titanic battle with the Conservative Party (which voted against it), the British Medical Association, and the right-wing press. Health Minister Aneurin Bevan suffered personal abuse and insults, and endless roadblocks from the medical establishment. But he negotiated, flattered, bribed and cajoled his way to the NHS Act, which created in 1948 what he called ‘the most civilised thing in the world’. On the first day of the NHS, 5th July 1948, Bevan visited Park Hospital, Manchester and met 13-yearold Sylvia Beckingham, the first ever patient of the NHS. In its 62 years, it has saved the lives and improved the well-being of hundreds of millions of people.

The New Jerusalem: Labour’s landslide in 1945 In the 1935 general election, Labour won just 154 seats. Following World War Two, Labour won a landslide victory over Churchill’s Conservatives, gaining 239 seats, and winning a majority of 145. The Labour government, meeting in the Lords Chamber because the Commons had been bombed by the Germans, enacted sweeping social and economic reforms including a cradle-to-grave welfare state, nationalisation of the railways, mines, heavy industries and the Bank of England, a million new houses, and the NHS. Labour’s period in office 1945-51 serves as an inspiration for what a radical programme, political will, and public support can achieve, but also a warning of how Labour governments can run out of steam.

Things Can Only Get Better: Labour’s landslide May 1997 If you can remember it, you’ll know why Tony Blair’s victory over John Major deserves a high ranking in Labour’s top ten. After 18 years of the Tories, two recessions, cuts to schools and hospitals, rising crime, mass unemployment, homeless people in shop doorways, and nasty laws like Section 28, it came as a blessed relief when Labour swept them from power. The day after 1st May 1997 people smiled at strangers in the street, and asked each other if they were ‘up for Portillo’. It was hard to find a Tory in May 1997. Blair’s government went on to rebuild the NHS, improve schools, cut unemployment, put more police on the streets, and create ‘Cool Britannia’.

Speak for England! Labour joins wartime coalition May 1940 Following the German invasion of France and the Low Countries in 1940, Prime Minister Chamberlain asked Labour leader Clement Attlee to join a coalition government. Attlee travelled to Bournemouth, to the Labour Party conference to seek the guidance of the Labour NEC. The NEC responded that Labour MPs should only take office in a coalition under a leader other than Chamberlain. Attlee conveyed this , and Chamberlain resigned. With Winston Churchill in place, Attlee agreed the terms of Labour’s participation in a coalition, and again went to Bournemouth to seek the NEC’s approval. Labour’s NEC was decisive in bringing Churchill to power in May 1940, and so helped to defeat the Nazis five years later.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

Breakthrough and birth of a party 1906 In the January 1906 General Election, the Labour Representation Committee (LRC) stood 50 candidates, and won 29 seats. Thanks to a pact between Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald and Herbert Gladstone, only 18 of the 50 LRC candidates were opposed by Liberal candidates. The pact gave Labour a huge boost, and paved the way for Labour to replace the Liberal Party as the main rival to the Conservative Party in the twentieth century. The LRC’s manifesto railed against unemployment, war, poverty, excessive taxation and ‘Chinese labour’. On arrival at Westminster they renamed the LRC as ‘the Labour Party’.

Labour’s first government passes the Wheatley Act 1924 Labour’s first government in 1924 lasted just 10 months. Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald appointed John Wheatley as Health Minister. Wheatley introduced the Housing Act, passed in August 1924. It made finances available to local councils to build decent homes; over half a million homes were built during the Depression thanks to the ‘Wheatley Act’. He wrote his policy was “not to rescue people from the slums but to prevent them getting there.” As well as improving the living conditions for millions of working class people, the act made the link between poor health and poor housing.

‘Candidates for immortality’ Mandela addresses Conference 2000 The Labour Party’s opposition to the system of apartheid in South Africa was unambiguous, consistent and unanimous. From the 50s to the 80s, Labour leaders, councils and Trade Unions supported the ANC’s struggle. Thatcher called Mandela a ‘terrorist’, Conservative students wore ‘Hang Mandela’ badges, and Tory MPs backed the Pretoria regime. In Labour’s centenary year Nelson Mandela addressed conference in Brighton. Delegates wept. Mandela singled out Labour’s contribution to the defeat of apartheid, and told us, “as I look at you today I can see men and women who are worthy candidates for immortality.”

The Clause IV Moment. Tony Blair modernises Clause IV 1995 Tony Blair’s first conference speech in 1994 contained a vague reference to revisiting the Labour Party conference. It soon occurred that he intended to rewrite the sacrosanct text of Clause IV, Part IV which committed Labour to ‘common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange’, an idea which no Labour Government had ever attempted to enact, and no modern socialist believed in. Blair’s ‘Clause IV moment’ came on 29th April 1995 at a special conference at Methodist Central Hall. Arthur Scargill wasn’t happy. But speaker after speaker sent a signal that ‘New Labour’ was more than a slogan.

Neil Kinnock attacks Militant Tendency 1985 Two years after 1983, there was serious debate as to whether Labour would survive as a major political party. Labour had won only 209 seats with 27.6% of the vote. Kinnock had inherited a party divided by factionalism, infected with extremism, and consumed by introspection. At Labour’s 1985 conference he launched an assault in his leader’s speech on the Trotskyist group Militant which had entered the Party and controlled Liverpool Council. It gave heart to Labour’s mainstream majority, and began Labour’s long climb back to electability. As late as the train journey there, Kinnock was still debating whether to do it or not.

The death of the Coalition: Labour’s landslide May 2015 The election of Prime Minister Miliband in May 2015 heralded the start of a reforming period of Labour government. The Coalition government had slumped in popularity after its economic policy created a recession and three Liberal Democrat Cabinet Ministers resigned. The Liberal Democrats, following a split with the ‘Real Lib Dems’ led by Simon Hughes, were reduced to ten seats in the 2015 general election, beaten by Labour candidates on a slogan of ‘Voting Yellow Gives You the Blues’. Labour’s return to office allowed the party to reform public services, tackle crime and pursue its historic mission to make Britain fairer.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

> THE YOUNG FABIAN ESSAY Ben Page and Helen Coombs, Ipsos MORI

The Story of the Polls

he 2010 General Election was one of the most exciting and unpredictable that anyone can remember, yet in the end the final outcome very closely reflected the party standings in the polls at the moment the campaign began. But, oddly, that outcome didn’t look remotely likely six months before election day, or – for entirely different reasons – two weeks before. At the end of 2009, the Conservatives appeared to be heading towards victory. The polls had an average 15 point lead over Labour for a whole year, a vast majority of people thought that Britain needed a fresh team of leaders and David Cameron was seen as the most capable Prime Minister by a wide margin. Nevertheless, on May 6th the election produced a hung parliament. In the interim, not only had the Conservative lead melted away, but the Liberal Democrats had briefly seemed to be competing for votes on equal terms with their two more established rivals. This essay outlines the changes in the public mood during the campaign. It analyses the key trends in the polls before, during and after the election.

THE PRE-CAMPAIGN POLLS The polls before the campaign already

showed a narrowing Conservative lead. Over 2009, the Conservatives had an average lead over Labour of 15 percentage points.

By the first quarter of 2010, this average had closed to only six points. Firmly in third place, the Liberal Democrats were hovering around just below a 20% share of the vote, as they had been for months. But between January and the start of the campaign on April 6th, almost all the polls agreed there was virtually no movement. The polls published in the first week of April averaged an eight

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

point lead, 38% for the Tories to Labour’s 30%, with the Lib Dems back on 20%: a hung Parliament, therefore, seemed on the cards from the start.

‘PRESIDENTIALISATION’ OF BRITISH POLITICS It was clear from the outset that this election was likely to be one in which the party leaders were of supreme importance. The agreement to hold leaders’ debates ensured that attention would be focused firmly on the leaders at the campaign events most likely to attract the voters’ attention, but even before the debates took place voters were already concentrating on the leaders to an unusual degree. Indeed, this was one of the key differences of this campaign from recent past elections. For the first time since Ipsos MORI started asking the question in 1983, leaders were felt to be as important as policies in attracting people to parties. The ‘presidentialisation’ of British politics finally took hold, and was further accentuated by the debates. Going into the campaign, Cameron was seen as the most capable Prime Minister with the best team of leaders. However, he was less popular than he had been eighteen months before (54% said they ‘liked Cameron’ in July 2008, compared to 45% in January 2010) while Brown’s ratings had been creeping up (although he was still trailing badly behind).

Nevertheless, there was great expectation of Cameron going into the campaign; he was expected to perform best in the debates by over half of the public. Clegg made him look poor by comparison in the first electrifying debate, although Cameron recovered to win the third and final confrontation.

THE DEBATES. GAME CHANGER OR NOT? Nick Clegg’s winning performance in

the first leaders’ debate created a surge in support for the Liberal Democrats. Ipsos MORI’s poll following the first debate put

the Lib Dems on an equal footing with the Conservatives at 32%, leaving Labour trailing in third place on 28%. It appeared that the political landscape had changed, literally, overnight. However, it is clear that whilst the debates changed people’s attitudes, they were not as influential in changing people’s anticipated voting behaviour as many commentators claimed at the time. Half of the public said the debates had had no impact on how they intended to vote (46% after the first debate, 45% after the second) and only 17% said they decided or changed their vote after the second. Arguably, the greatest impact of the debates was to create uncertainty rather than decisively to change minds. The televised leadership battle presented a credible third option which was attractive to many people. Yet, in terms of ultimate outcome, it never stopped looking like a hung parliament. Further, the people who were attracted to the Lib Dem offer were largely people who had been less certain to vote earlier in the year - or would not otherwise have voted at all – many of whom, as it turned out, eventually did not turn out to vote.

THE COLAPSE OF THE LIB DEM SURGE The 2010 campaign was characterised by unprecedented numbers of voters saying they may change their minds

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

GET INVOLVED www.youngfabians.org.uk

event young fabian

ATTEND OUR EVENTS

about who to vote for. Less than two weeks before polling day, almost half of voters were still wavering, compared to a third at the same point in 2005, and fewer than one in five in 1992. Most of these wavering voters were Liberal Democrat supporters, who were also less likely to say the outcome of the election was important to them. As it turned out, their ‘soft’ support did not translate into votes on polling day. Indeed, the Lib Dem boost is perhaps best described as ‘froth’ on the top of a relatively stable electorate during this period. They made no net gains from either the Conservatives or Labour, who both had slightly higher support (in numbers though not in percentage share of the vote) than before the first debate. Clegg’s party may have been picking up voters that in normal circumstances would have moved from undecided to Conservative or Labour rather than Lib Dem, but was not taking votes from the two other parties’ existing support.

THE PERFORMANCE OF THE POLLS Given the volatility and uncertainty of this election, this was a difficult election to predict. The debates were an unknown factor, as was the ultimate effect of the expenses scandal. Despite these challenges the polls were remarkably accurate. It is disappointing that most overestimated the Lib Dem share –

there was no easy way of factoring in the ‘softness’ of Lib Dem support, tactical voting and late swing. But the final prediction polls were on the whole remarkably accurate in predicting the Conservative and Labour shares. Polling in the marginals, such as Ipsos MORI’s series of polls for Reuters, was also very accurate, signalling very early in the campaign that the Conservatives did not have sufficient swing in key battleground constituencies to gain an overall majority. The Ipsos MORI/ GfK NOP Exit Poll for the BBC/ ITN/ Sky was spot-on yet again, despite gasps from viewers at 10pm when the lower-than-expected Lib Dem share was announced. Before May 6th most people expected a hung parliament, although the day before the election most thought it would be bad for the country (55%). However, in the week since the new government was formed, the public seem to be broadly positive about how effective it will be. Once the dust from the whirlwind election begins to settle, longer term attitudes towards the Con-Lib government will begin to emerge, but initially at least, the honeymoon period is reflected in the polls. About Ipsos MORI Ipsos MORI is one of the largest, and best known research companies in the UK and a key part of the Ipsos Group, a leading global research company with a presence in 64 countries around the world. For further information visit www.ipsos-mori.com.

BLOG CONTRIBUTE TO OUR BLOG

JOIN YOUNG FABIAN WOMEN

YF:PDGs DEVELOP NEW POLICY

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

WHERE NOW FOR REFORM? Willie Sullivan Campaign Director, Vote for a Change

On the coalition and the future for electoral reform

he kaleidoscope of British politics has been shaken hard and settled into a pattern that most of us are struggling to make sense of. The nightmare hung parliament scenario conjured up by the ‘terror journalism’ of the Murdoch press seems to be much more benign that predicted. Society, the economy and the constitution remained relatively at ease through this period. From a reformers point of view the smoothness of coalition discussions and the robustness of the British Constitution are all positive examples to point to. And while we can be partisan and critical about policies and positioning of any government, pluralists must hope that different political traditions can work together in a bigger interest. So is this the new politics? Yes and No. Coalition government is certainly new to the UK. But a cabinet predominantly representative of a political and social elite is the rule in British political history rather than the exception. Sure, things have changed and in many ways electoral reform as an issue sits front and centre as a reference point to what happened, what might have happened and what may be about to happen. British politics seems to have realigned itself to the centre right. This opportunity for the British Right to recalibrate was afforded by the failure of the Left to radically amend an unrepresentative electoral system when it had the

opportunity. In 1997 the potential for a deal on electoral reform was washed away in the wake of a landslide victory and the force of tribalism within Labour. The opportunity to create a representative majority of the centre left uniting social liberalism with social democrats looks now as if it was squandered. This missed opportunity shows a particular lack of vision, imagination and courage from those that led the Labour Party in the last three governments. But perhaps this is the inevitable sad truth about power and the powerful. That they cling on even as it may destroy them. Like Golam grasping for the Ring. It is deeply ironic now that the Conservative Party in coalition are bringing forward a referendum to reform the voting system. This does on current modelling look too much like Turkeys voting for Christmas. An election under the proposed AV system will probably reduce the Tory seat share. On reflection there seems to be only two political imperatives for Cameron allowing this to happen. One would be if he assumes that the Lib Con coalition can be made permanent thus ejecting his troublesome right wing into the hinter land and allowing the left fringes of the Lib Dems to fall off into Labour. If there is genuinely some sort of alignment of the Right occurring then

AV would allow Lib Dems and Tories voters to transfer second preference votes to each other and ensure a Lib Con majority for the foreseeable future. The second might be that Cameron is fairly sure that reform will be defeated in the referendum and that such a defeat will put back the question of reform for a generation. There is talk of Labour pushing an amendment to the relevant bill as it moves through Parliament. Probably attempting to amend it to AV Plus - a proportional system recommended by Lord Jenkins in his inquiry in the late 90s when it looked as though politics might realign itself to the left. Such a move by Labour will cause tension within the coalition as most Lib Dem MPs and party members would prefer AV Plus over AV. This would also allow Labour to position itself as being more progressive than the coalition - a message that has to now be slightly garbled. There seems to be a lot of upsides and no down side for Labour in pushing AV Plus so why wouldn’t they do it? Well it depends on how much sway the same forces of reaction hold that squashed the reforming opportunities in the late 90s? There are those old school Labour hard men mainly from Scotland and the North that you can just imagine shouting ‘hit me harder!’ as they slink away into permanent opposition rather than support anything as wimpy as powersharing or pluralism.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

WHERE WERE THE WOMEN? Preth Rao Secretary, Young Fabians

On the prominence of women in the General Election

or me, one of the most pertinent themes of the recent General Election was the evident lack of requisite diversity in British politics. Watching election debates, reading articles, hearing senior Labour MPs talk about Labour policy, they all appeared to be white men. Tessa Jowell would appear on London television relatively frequently but Yvette Cooper and Harriet Harman seemed relatively obscured given their cabinet roles and wealth of experience. One of the most encouraging exceptions for me was the fantastic image of Margaret Hodge defeating the BNP in Barking and the support that she galvanised along the way. Taking a step back to examine this issue, it is bizarre. The Parliamentary Labour Party had almost 30% women. The wider membership of the Labour Party is also certainly more diverse, as I was reminded when campaigning in Southwark. However, during the election, this was not the impression that we chose to give. It seems as though in an election that was one of the most closely fought political battles for a long time, we became distracted by what became more ‘pertinent’ issues. We forgot about the importance of diversity at the most senior levels. This is something we must learn from. In doing so, we must also acknowledge that the pool of diverse talent at the top is still far too limited. Distinguishing ourselves as true progressives involves grabbing this mantle and running with it. This is an issue over which Labour has clear ground over our rivals - with all women shortlists and a number of prominent women cabinet members during the last 13 years (albeit not enough). All one needs to do is look

at the current coalition cabinet to see the emptiness of the Conservatives’ and Lib Dems’ pledges to be progressive when their cabinet is ashamedly regressive in terms of equality of representation. The only ethnic minority cabinet minister, Baroness Warsi, is unelected and unpaid! Labour remains the party with the highest number of women MPs, 81 in total, which is 31% of our total, an increase from 28% in 2005. Although, we lost a number of fantastic MPs such as Dawn Butler. We selected female candidates in 50% of seats but next time we need to go further to fill the gender democratic deficit. Less than a third is inadequate when we constitute 51% of the population. In comparison only 16% of Tory MPs are women and a woeful 12% of Lib Dems. The figure is 22% across parliament. Again, Labour leads in terms of ethnic minority MPs with an increase of 3 in total to 16, which is a proportionate increase from 4% to 6%. This is in comparison to 4% for Parliament and the Conservative Party, and 0% for the Liberal Democrats. The ethnic minority population of the UK was 7.9% in 2001 and will undoubtedly have grown in the last decade. We need to exploit this representation and credibility gap, one that Nick Clegg has acknowledged as a failure of his party and yet not included in the coalition programme. Whilst numbers and proportions are important, leadership is fundamental. Following Caroline Flint‘s criticisms and the departure of other prominent women such as Kitty Usher, the latter citing the incompatibility of her role with spending quality time with her young children, there is clearly an issue to be addressed that

must move beyond rhetoric. A number of leadership candidates have acknowledged this. Representation at the most senior level is about much more than symbolism. It affects the way in which elections are fought and policies are formed. In a stroke of genius, Diane Abbott’s leadership bid tackles this inequality head on. After 23 years as an MP she’s brought this debate directly to people. Abbott’s campaign is more than about her gender and ethnicity, but it forms an essential part. Her plan is to engage more women Labour Members and trade union members in forming a vision for the future of the party. There may be further evidence that the tide is turning with Oona King throwing her hat into the ring for Labour London Mayoral candidate. Strong female contenders and those from further underrepresented backgrounds should be actively supported by the Party to come forward. Tackling parliamentary underrepresentation of women, ethnic minority and disabled people was the task of the recent Speaker’s Conference. Although its recommendations fell short, a future Labour leader must commit to continuing a systematic review of political structures and party and societal barriers to representation. Action must be taken both in opposition and government. We must demand that all leadership candidates demonstrate credible ideas and commit to gender parity in the formation of a shadow cabinet. The Labour leadership contest is the perfect opportunity to put candidates’ commitment to equality and fair representation to the test. Who will demonstrate decisive leadership? I watch with baited breath.

WHERE NOW FOR LABOUR?

LESSONS FROM LONDON Christine Quigley Young Fabian member and Chair of London Young Labour

On Labour’s election successes in London

t five in the morning on May 7th, three election results were announced almost simultaneously that cheered the hearts of many weary Labour activists. While it may be hyperbole to say that they heralded the dawn after a long dark night for Labour, the victories in Westminster North, Islington South and Hammersmith showed the deep wells of popular support that remain for our party and, perhaps more importantly, showed that sometimes we can surprise ourselves with our successes. Let’s be clear; the London election results weren’t good for Labour. With 38 seats, we are six down on the 2005 total and only ten ahead of the Conservatives. We lost hard-working and dedicated MPs like Dawn Butler and Martin Linton - some on painfully small margins. Winning back a seat from Respect in Bethnal Green and Bow was always likely to happen. London’s East End should be a safe area for Labour. But there were successes unmatched by other areas of the country. In Westminster seats, we held not only the constituencies mentioned above, but Hampstead and Kilburn, Poplar and Limehouse, and Barking, under threat from Nick Griffin. Some MPs not only won, but increased their majorities. Islington North saw a 3.3% swing from the Lib Dems to Labour, defying the national trend. Stephen Timms, MP for East Ham, is officially the most popular MP in the country, with 35,471 votes cast, beating both Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Some of the local results were staggering, as council after council fell under Labour

control - Camden, Islington, Ealing, Enfield and Harrow. Watching the BNP lose all of their twelve council seats to Labour in Barking and Dagenham was a particular highlight for many London activists. For the first time since Boris Johnson’s election, it doesn’t seem outlandish to believe that Labour can win back the Mayoralty in 2012. There are lessons to be learned from this (comparative) success for the next election. The MPs who clung on to their seats this time around, and those new MPs who stormed home to victory, all have one thing in common - a substantial personal vote. The only way to secure this is to work incredibly hard for your constituents. I was lucky enough to be campaigning for my own MP, Karen Buck, on election day. I say ‘lucky’, because I didn’t meet anyone on the doorstep with a bad word to say about her. People who don’t tend to vote voted for her; people whose national inclination would be Conservative voted for her; young people too often seen as being disengaged with politics came out to give her their first votes. Many of the London MPs who were successful this time around have such high name recognition because they are always available to help their constituents. Much of the success in London must be credited to the hard-working and dedicated teams of sitting councillors and council candidates. Where parliamentary and council candidates link up effectively, the results can be spectacular. Labour’s effective campaign in opposition on Islington council to introduce free school meals for primary pupils did just that – it

showed what local councillors, supported by a Labour MP, could do and was incredibly popular on the doorstep. The return of two Labour MPs and a Labour majority on the council is unlikely to be coincidental in this case. Being a good MP doesn’t just mean being a decent parliamentarian. Gone are the Burkeian days when the privileged classes dispatched one of their number to Westminster to vote according to their consciences and pop back every five years for re-election. We expect Members of Parliament to live with the people they represent and to fight for their interests. That means more emphasis on tangible issues, rather than high politics. Yes, Labour have lost voters over Iraq and Afghanistan, over MPs’ expenses and top-up fees, but the way to win them back is to prove that we can deliver locally. High matters of state can be make-or-break issues for some constituents, but so can local schools and hospitals. Labour’s ‘Change we see’ campaign was an attempt to tap into this localism, but we must do more. There is no shame in being a good constituency MP. It’s not less important than holding ministerial office, or select committee chairmanship, or debating big issues in the chamber. In fact, being rooted in local communities complements these other roles, making politicians truly representative of the people they serve. To restore confidence in politics, we need to bring our elected representatives back to the people who choose them, making sure they care about what their constituents do. If that means more parliamentary discussion of the menaces of wheelie bins and dog poo, then bring it on.

FOCUS ON...

ALASTAIR STEWART Alastair Stewart OBE is one of the UK’s most experienced and respected presenters, having anchored national news bulletins since 1983. He chaired the first ever Leader’s Debate on British television.

On young people and the TV debates

n the early 1970s, I had the honour to serve as Deputy President of the NUS. All was clearer then: Soviet Union bad, the forces of international capital worse. Even the Communist Party members, pace Hungary and Czechoslovakia, admitted that nirvana was no longer likely to be found in the long shadow of the Kremlin. The ‘Trots’ remained wedded to their ‘transitional demands’ as sure-fired ways of exposing parliamentary democracy for the bourgeois sham they believed it to be. The Tories were all for wrecking the NUS, with Lord Forsyth playing a leading role, while the Liberals were keen to play but seldom found even a foothold. Not a misspent youth, then, but a fine hot-house in which to hone my love of democracy and passion for politics, in all its varied and fissiparous glory. But the big issues then were like magnets for young men and women; and getting them involved was nowhere near the challenge it has become among debtburdened students who see East and West at relative peace, and ideological conflict broadly replaced by a contest over managerial skills. Thus I approached the 2010 General Election with a little trepidation. Was it really to be a 1945/1979/1997 ‘changer’? All the polls had suggested people were pretty fed up with Gordon Brown but not yet wedded to the notion of David Cameron. And when the pace of public spending cuts was a principle point of disagreement rather than the notion of cuts, it didn’t have the makings of a real tiff. Of course there were other issues schools, immigration, some aspects of

defence - but this wasn’t feeling very vibrant. Then along came the debates. Like it or not, our parliamentary politics have become presidential. The debates didn’t make it so they merely reflected and confirmed that reality. And they were conducted on television, the medium of the age and the medium of young people. Add to that the whirlwind of discourse, exchange and interaction witnessed on the internet. In chat-rooms and on social network sites, you saw a battle royal being played out by young people, with the toys and tools they love and understand. Of course the bulk of the 9.6 million people who watched the first debate, on ITV, were not young people. But 1.8 million of them, who watched the full ninety minutes, were in the 16-34 year-old range; and, of that age group, 2.9m watched at least some of it. Amazingly, 400,000 under 16 year old ‘children’ watched and I have anecdotal evidence from my primary school teacher daughter to confirm that. Overall, the ITV ratings boffins tell me 2.2 million under 35 year olds watched our debate - that is nearly a quarter of the total audience. I have no idea how many participated on line but the traffic was extraordinary and our newsroom staff found it impossible to keep up with. So it was a hit with younger people. But did that matter a jot? One result was a slight increase in voter turn-out, which both disappointed and surprised me - I had expected and hoped for better. But voter registration surged, in part thanks to a parallel campaign on

Facebook. Another was a surge in opinion poll support for the Liberal Democrats - the largest 48 hour leap ever recorded. It didn’t translate on polling day itself to more seats for Clegg - quite the reverse - but it happened in the wake of the first debate. A third possible result was that it may have contributed to the hung parliament we now have. I say ‘may’ because, in all honesty, no one yet knows for sure - we’ll have to await the full consideration of the psephologists and a library or two of MPhils, and PhDs. I’d hazard a guess, however, that it did. If the debate helped young people engage or re-engage with politics, that is an absolute good. If what they found was not to their liking, that is a fundamental challenge both to the practitioners of elective politics and the media that reports their practice. As a piece of TV, it was both fascinating and compelling to be involved in. Having watched it back, I do not think the ‘rules’ neutered the discourse. You saw three men, jousting for the most powerful position in the land, without notice of the questions and without too much mediation between them and the questioners. It was lively, engaging and elucidating. In the future I’d like the questioners to have ‘come-back’. I’d like less ‘rebuttal’ time and more open debate. And I’d like applause - or a chilling lack of it. That so many young people watched and appear to have been influenced one way or the other, is surely a cause of celebration.

...THE TV DEBATES

GLORIA DE PIERO MP Gloria De Piero worked in television journalism for over ten years and became GMTV’s Political Editor. Dubbed Tony Blair’s favorite broadcaster, she left GMTV to fight the seat of Ashfield which she won at the last election.

On the future for the TV debates

s someone who worked in television for 15 years I’ve had to pitch a lot of ideas to commissioning editors. But to suggest a 90 minute debate programme between three white middle-aged men, with no film packages, no audience reaction and no supplementary questions? I can tell you there would have been a few chuckles at the expense of whoever came up with that idea. Cynics would claim that people are no longer interested in politics; that viewers switch off in droves at the sight of boring men in suits talking about ‘issues’. In the event, more than 9 million people tuned in to the first debate, proving that there is an appetite for something more than When Celebrity Dancers Attack Animals on Ice. On the doorsteps of my constituency of Ashfield, in the former Nottinghamshire coalfield, people were discussing the debates for days afterwards. These were the fixed points about which the election pivoted. The days leading up to the debates were dominated by talk of this innovation in British politics. Newspapers confidently predicted the winners and losers, giving us trite comparisons between Brown-Cameron and Nixon-Kennedy. Bookmakers took bets on who would say what first, turning the debates into a form of political bingo. Will it be Afghanistan or the volcanic ash cloud? – place your bets now. The politicians themselves were forced to focus on the debates before all other campaigning. American consultants were flown in at great expense to lend their expertise to our debate virgins. In rehearsals, advisers acted out the roles of

opponents. Just as I used to role-play with Jonathan Dimbleby or John Humphrys as we prepared for the big Sunday interview, so did Alastair Campbell become David Cameron, Damian Green was Gordon Brown and Jeremy Hunt posed as Nick Clegg. Like death row lawyers coaching their clients for cross examination they played their parts, toughening up the leaders for the main event. Then came the real debates. While the audience in the studio was forbidden from clapping or jeering, there were no such restrictions for those of us watching at home. Instead of watching passively, people were interacting with the debates in new ways. Focus groups controlled the debate worm, the real-time graph showing approval or disapproval towards what was being said at that moment. Facebook and Twitter had thousands of updates, dissecting each blow that struck or missed, each joke that scored or failed. And of course we had the instant polls showing who was deemed to have ‘won’. The post-debate media coverage was defined by these instant reactions. This lessened the influence of the newspaper editors and commentators. They, used to telling the public what they should think, were now faced with raw unmediated data showing them what we really thought. No longer could the Tory papers claim an all-out victory for Cameron in the face of his declining numbers and surging Cleggmania. Similarly, the boast of the Murdoch press in the months leading up to the election that Cameron was the best thing since sliced bread rang hollow in the face of the direct nature of the debates. When the viewers

were left to make up their own minds, they were disappointed in what Cameron had to offer, no matter what their morning paper said. So the big question is: Are we now a Debate Democracy? I think the simple answer is yes. The success – and the viewing figures – make it almost impossible to put this genie back into the bottle. But my advice, for what it’s worth, for whoever will be negotiating the terms for our new leader is to stand firm. With the ConDems beginning to act like one party and not a coalition, we must make it clear from the earliest opportunity that when the next debates come we cannot have Labour standing against a two-headed Hydra. The debates will stay with us and any politician would be a fool to pretend they could avoid them. We need to define exactly what we are prepared to take part in pretty soon, and not wait until the eve of the next election. And whatever reservations we have about presidential politics, one positive outcome of the debates is that they helped to mitigate the massive discrepancy in party funding. In the closely controlled atmosphere of the studio, the three leaders were granted equivalence, and not even Michael Ashcroft’s millions could distort the balance. For me, the most important TV moment of the election was not the debates between the leaders. I’m sorry to say it was Gordon’s ‘bigotgate’ moment in Rochdale which had more of an impact on the doorstep. Yet again television was the beneficiary. Not when cameras were glaring at a politician in the comfort of a studio, but when a politician thought that he was off air. The debates may not have involved Simon Cowell, text-voting or bushtucker trials in the jungle, but this is a format that I suspect will be part of the TV landscape long after Ant and Dec have retired.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

YOUNG FABIAN POLICY

Young Fabian Vice Chair Adrian Prandle reports back from the Young Fabian Policy Development Groups

YF:PDGs

policy development groups

f the Fabian Society is about ideas, and the Young Fabians is about the next generation, then the Young Fabian Policy Development Groups (PDGs) are about realising that there is no time to waste. The context of a Conservative-led government and the first competitive Labour leadership election since today’s oldest Young Fabian members were too young to join the Society offers a huge opportunity for centre-left ideas on domestic policy, Britain’s policy abroad, and even the way the Labour Party organises and presents itself. The strength of the PDGs lies within our membership. The four groups – Livelihoods and Resource Security (looking at development and foreign policy); Work and Families; Aspiration and Equality (focussing on education policy); and a special project group, Transforming Our Party – have Young Fabian members, with a range of interests, expertise and experiences, signed up in their hundreds. They have been seeking new policy ideas with the aim of developing these collectively to inform decision-makers and senior party figures as well as other Young Fabian and Labour members. Published outcomes from the PDGs predecessor in 2009 have been cited from the top table at leadership hustings and 2010’s work promises to be just as influential. Recognising the need to harness the talents of all of our members, we have redoubled

our efforts to involve and empower and have utilised web-based resources to make this easier for Young Fabians across the country. Members have been encouraged to participate by email, blogging, joining a Facebook group, and accessing the many resources in the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website. We have trialled online discussion and looked into wikis. As I write, members in Manchester are seeking to organise a spin-off meeting for participants in the North West. Starting with the PDGs’ special project, Transforming our Party, led by Jessica Studdert, members have been focussing on three key areas. Firstly, developing a party policy-making process which values member voice and gets the balance right between the values ‘heart’ of the party and the pragmatic ‘mind’. Secondly, local party organisation and the need to become less inward-looking and more outward facing, anchored in local communities. The third area is equality and diversity and how we can encourage more participation from a greater variety of people and secure long-term cultural change. The Work and Families PDG is chaired by Josie Cluer and has been seeking to answer a series of questions. On families: What is a good family – and what is the role for government in encouraging them? On work: what is the ideal workplace and what is the role for unions in shaping them? Why is pay

so unequal – and how can government make British employers pay fair and play fair? And on the issues central to living our lives and providing for our families: Can welfare be cut and improved at the same time? What is the future for housing? Our Livelihoods and Resource Security group began with chair Adam Short and members of the group setting out a series of key themes. Focussing on development, the group has analysed the sustainable livelihoods model and looked at how the empowerment of women can become central to development policy. It has looked at the issue of resources from the perspective of Britain’s foreign policy and in terms of stresses in developing countries, not least the impacts of climate change. The PDG on Aspiration and Equality has begun to delve into the areas of education members are currently or most recently acquainted with, building upon previous Young Fabian work on social mobility, and developing policy ideas to ensure no-one is excluded from succeeding in education, work and life. Practising teachers, including the group’s chair, Carla Powell, have played a key role and we have also looked to see what the trade union movement can tell us about learning. It’s not too late to join in – if you’d like to participate in any one of the PDGs, please get in touch or visit the PDG hub on our website.

SOCIETY NEWS

YOUNG FABIAN CAMPAIGNING

Young Fabian executive member Vincenzo Rampulla on the hard work of Young Fabians during the election

oung Fabians sometimes get a raw deal. Our reputation is of a leading youth organisation but somehow we’ve become synonymous with high debate, policy events and new ideas but not as excellent campaigners. That is unfair. I know very many of us are incredibly active campaigners within their local Labour parties. Many Young Fabians have stood for election across the country. The society itself has a rich history of members not just talking about progressive ideals but campaigning for them too. So with this General Election we wanted to address that perception. Labour’s ‘word of mouth’ strategy meant that success would come from getting people involved. So we decided the best way to influence this election was to get organised and come together to campaign as Young Fabians. Moreover this election we showed our determination to work with and support other organisations in the Labour movement like Young Labour, Co-op Youth and Hope not Hate. Our leadership debate parties saw a huge number of us come together. This also meant that we phoned voters before the debates, encouraging them to tune in to support Labour. Through new media we also managed to reach a broader audience and involve Young Fabians across the country. Surprisingly our determination to be an

active part in this election meant that we were able to bring together members who had previously been shy about joining in with our events. Though time and resources limited us to campaigning in London, our Campaign Diary provided an open forum for Young Fabians across the UK to share their experiences of the election campaign. Nevertheless London provided more than enough battlegrounds, issues and candidates to get involved with and support. And the campaigning sessions proved popular with members. Our campaign trail started in Walthamstow with Stella Creasy and former Young Fabian Chair Mark Rusling. Their campaign was an excellent introduction for Young Fabians who had never engaged in doorstep politics because of their campaign’s emphasis on community engagement. The importance of local politics was evident when we campaigned in Islington North for three former Chairs of the Young Fabians. Here the challenge was less to help re-elect the already popular local MP, Jeremy Corbyn, but to regain control of the council to start delivering services to meet local priorities. There was obvious excitement when our campaign moved to Barking and Dagenham to fight the BNP. Working with HOPE Not Hate, who had organised a huge day of action, we managed to contact hundreds of

residents that day to convince them to vote and keep fascism out. From fascism to poverty, our campaign moved to Westminster North where Karen Buck was facing a difficult battle against a high-profile Tory candidate. Our next campaign stop showed just what the absence of a Labour MP can mean to an area. Bethnal Green and Bow had lost a hard working Labour MP in Oona King in 2005 and gained a divisive political force in Respect and George Galloway. This time around the Labour candidate, Rushanara Ali, had put together an impressively well-run campaign. Standing as a unifying candidate for the community, Rushanara’s campaign was a great opportunity for us to see how an Obama-style street level campaign worked in a UK setting. Our final stop was Harrow West where we met up with Co-op Youth and Labour Campaign for International Development members to campaign for Gareth Thomas MP. Campaigning through the constituency we were able to point to the new schools and local investment funded by Labour. We didn’t win a majority at this General Election. However, we did win in all the seats in which the Young Fabians campaigned. Some would say that is coincidence. I don’t think so. I’ve already had members ask me where the next campaign they can in get involved in is.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

LESSONS FROM THE NETWORK James Green Anticipations Editor and former Labour Candidate for Cheltenham

On how Labour values must drive the way we campaign

t’s been a strange few months since the election. After an incredibly intense, exciting and nerve-wracking few years I now find myself feeling strangely empty. Many former Parliamentary Candidates will say the same. Fighting a General Election is more than a full time job. It occupies every waking moment of your life - and many sleeping ones too. In those last months I ate, slept and dreamt Labour. I loved it and I miss it. Cheltenham is a wonderful place and it was an honour to fight to represent residents there. It was always going to be an uphill struggle and, while Labour didn’t win the seat, we certainly punched above our weight in the town. But it was tough. The past two years have been the steepest of learning curves. There was always more to know and more to do. For me, like so many others, being a candidate became about mastering successfully spinning plates. But it is possible to make that curve less steep. The Labour Party played an important role in helping to do just that. The party’s resources, training sessions and briefing days were invaluable to candidates from across the country. But there is more that can be done. Most crucially, far greater thought needs to be given to how we can facilitate greater collaboration. Candidates often have similar aims, tasks and challenges and yet have few, if any, opportunities to learn from each other. In the time-pressured environment of a General Election we spent far too much of that time reinventing

the same wheels. It was with this in mind that I established the Young Fabian Candidates Network. I wanted to be able to get advice, explore ideas and share best practice with other candidates and I was confident that many others would want to do the same. It turned out that they did. Within two weeks of launch 75 parliamentary and council candidates had joined the network and by the time the General Election came around nearly 10% of Labour’s Parliamentary Candidates had signed up. Based online, the network allowed candidates to upload videos, blog posts and leaflets, participate in discussion forums and post any questions that they had. I learnt a huge amount from other candidates. Network members such as Luke Pollard, Labour’s candidate for South West Devon, produced innovative videos, putting together short and engaging films that opened his campaign up to local members and residents. Others such as Kevin McKeever, who fought for Labour in Harborough, led the way in online campaigning, using Twitter and Facebook to their full potential, while building up over 2,000 followers in the process. And candidates such as former Young Fabian Chair Howard Dawber in Bexleyheath and Crayford put together great leaflets that went far beyond traditional efforts, resonating with residents in meaningful ways. There was so much good work out there. The network allowed all of us to make the most of it. That work is as relevant today as it

was during the General Election. Now in opposition we face a difficult task in bringing people back home to Labour. Yet, despite that challenge, Labour has a rich pool of talent to tap into. Up and down the country young former candidates have developed invaluable skills and expertise and are chomping at the bit to take the fight to our opponents. The same is true of the thousands of young people who chose not stand for election but worked just as hard on local and general election campaigns, pounding the streets for Labour across the UK. All these people have gained vital experience at the coal face that we must make the most of if we are to reconnect with the hundreds of thousands of voters that left us across the country at the last election. So how can we do that? The leadership race provides an important opportunity to renew the way our party functions. Structures developed to quash dissent in the 1980s are no longer relevant. The next leader must trust our members and activists not only in the development of party policy, but also in shaping the way we campaign. At the heart of that effort must be a commitment to facilitate greater collaboration. We know that “by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.” Yet too often we campaign in silos. The real lesson of the Candidates Network is that, by bringing people together, we can learn from each other and develop the skills, knowledge and experience that our Party needs.

YOUNG FABIAN CANDIDATES NETWORK

REBECCA RENNISON

JORDAN NEWELL

LUCY RIGBY

DARREN JONES

SANCHIA ALASIA

JONATHAN SLATER

People always ask if I enjoyed the general election, but I’m not sure ‘enjoyed’ is the right word. ‘Survived’ is more how I’d sum up my experience. Every day presented a fresh challenge, from the logistical (such as transporting campaign materials over a large, rural constituency), to the media (with a local paper that described me alternately as the “young” or “inexperienced” candidate), to enquiries from voters, some friendly some definitely not, to public speaking at hustings (I am looking forward to future hustings with Lib Dems where they have to take their share of responsibility for the tough decisions faced in government). At the time all I could think of was getting through each day. But looking back, it was an amazing experience and one I’m very glad to of ‘survived’. As David Cameron scurried into Number 10 under the cover of darkness in May, I told my activists and members that the fight for ‘tomorrow’ has only just begun. Colchester is a strange political battleground, where we have been in coalition on our local council and where we retain Essex’s only Labour county councillor. So at the start of the campaign, I set myself three key objectives – to ensure the Tories did not win in Colchester; to maintain a good position for Labour; and to retain our council seat. I am delighted that we achieved all three. Our fantastic local election results this May are the untold story of this campaign. We may have lost our majority, but we did not lose the public’s confidence. Hundreds of Labour councillors were elected and councils won. And for me, that’s just the beginning. I spent the last six weeks working full-time on the local and general election campaign in Islington South. As a council candidate, I was only a very little cog in the Labour wheel, but I felt like I was genuinely helping to bring about positive change. For that reason it was one of the best experiences of my life. Labour’s campaign in Islington was a localised one: we fought on local issues, our activists mobilised an unprecedented level of community support and we engaged with residents face-to-face again and again over a long period of time. Mechanically-speaking, our operation was slick: brilliantly organised, positive, extremely well supported by members, union colleagues and volunteers and, ultimately, incredibly successful. Emily improved her majority and we took the Council by 35 to 13. Coming from a non-political family, my first major political memory was 1997. As a candidate at this election I have witnessed the hugely impressive advancements made by the Labour Government of 1997-2010. We have so much to be thankful for. But campaigning at this election has also added to the emotion I felt when Gordon Brown resigned as Prime Minister and as we moved into opposition. An emotion I have never quite felt before sadness, exhaustion and a complete re-engerisation to get on the doorstep, to continue campaigning hard. This election was my introduction as a candidate to campaigning at a crucial election, it was my first experience of Labour being in opposition and it was the election that I know has re-fuelled me to campaign hard for now and forever more. I was elected as a councillor in Alibon ward in Barking and Dagenham. This is a very challenging ward to represent as it was previously represented by two BNP councillors, including Bob Bailey, leader of the BNP in London. I am looking forward to standing up for the genuine concerns of people living within the area such as anti-social behaviour, road resurfacing and youth facilities. It was difficult to balance campaigning and being a councillor with a full time job, family and personal life. The majority of the meetings, canvassing and leaflet drops I do are done in the evenings or weekends and so my family does have to be understanding. You do have to prioritise the events and meetings that will be the most meaningful. Two and a half years ago I was selected as Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate for Aldershot. Since being selected I became involved in a lot of campaigns, but probably one of the most satisfying was my campaign for all Gurkhas to have the right to settle in the UK, many of whom live in Aldershot which is the home of the British Army. Back in January 2009 I coordinated with Martin Salter a signed letter from 29 Labour Parliamentary Candidates that was sent to the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown. OveralI I enjoyed the experience of being a Labour Parliamentary Candidate, particularly in giving me a platform from which I could make a positive impact on the lives of many of my constituents. It has shown me how political campaigning can change things for the better.

ANTICIPATIONS • SUMMER 2010

TOP TEN TIPS FOR LABOUR’S FIGHTBACK John Prescott

2 4 6 8 10 30

Defend the record. I felt that in the last election we should have given a greater

emphasis on what we achieved under Tony and Gordon – the minimum wage, a stronger economy, new schools and hospitals, a better NHS and thousands more doctors, nurses and teachers. We must highlight our achievements as it’s a record to be proud of. Engage new members. New members are normally invited by their local ward to their next meeting. But in some areas, our wards are either moribund or the structure of our meetings put people off. We must look at other ways of reaching them, through social networks and regional events.

Empower young Labour. Young people have an absolutely crucial part to play in rebuilding Labour as a campaigning party. If elected as Treasurer, I intend to work closely in supporting them through training and building capacity. We need to empower young people to drive campaigning. For example, crowdsourcing the party’s ad was actually a good idea. Get the best candidates. The longer you have a candidate in place, the more likely they are to win. We must stop last minute standdowns by sitting MPs. Also, we should make all candidates sign up to a list of campaign goals to ensure they continue to work hard on keeping the seat, even when elected. Sort out the finances. If elected as Treasurer, I intend to work closely with the new Leader and the General Secretary to help put Labour on a stable financial footing. These are tough times. We have to cut our cloth accordingly.

1 3 5 7 9

Set the agenda. We must set a clear progressive agenda to show how we will tackle the issues that matter to people now – jobs, health, crime and economic stability. But all our policies must be grounded in our values of fairness, equality and social justice. Build a mass membership party. We must build a vibrant mass membership party in opposition. Tony Blair and I pioneered this in the 90s, doubling party membership to 400,000. 20,000 have already joined since our defeat but many more would join if we cut the fee. How about associate membership – join for £1 but with no voting rights. Make the most of new media. We must make better use of social media platforms for twoway communication. Not only to speak directly with the public but to allow members to shape our party, our policy making and campaign. I got 30,000 people to sign an online petition against RBS. Let’s see regional training sessions in new media campaigning. Get organised in our communities. For too long, we’ve been a bit inward, looking in on ourselves when we should be turning out into our communities. We should do more to reach out and talk with voluntary groups, local charities and community groups. Not only to learn more about our area but to source potential activists.

Be an effective opposition. We must hold the coalition to account with a constructive and effective opposition. I spent 18 years on the opposition benches. We must relearn the art of effective permanent campaigning so that it permeates through the party at every level. Time to enjoy the fun of Freedom of Information requests.

John Prescott was Labour’s deputy leader from 1994-2007 and is currently running to become Party Treasurer. You can find out more about his campaign at www.prezza.org.

In the next Anticipations...

Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the big idea? What ideas should shape the 21st century? Email your ideas to anticipations@youngfabians.org.uk by August 2nd

YOUNG FABIANS

ANTICIPATIONS ANTICIPATIONS YOUNG FABIANS

Volume 13, Issue 4 | Summer 2010