Centralised localism

“I am a strong localist, for one simple reason. I know that the small, the personal and the local work with the grain of human nature and not against it. But this is not some romantic attachment to the patterns of our past. Localism holds the key to economic, social and political success in the future.”

David Cameron, Conservative Localism Policy Paper

The attempt to deselect Conservative Parliamentary candidate Liz Truss has received a disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to its political significance. In part this is because of our insatiable desire to gossip about people, rather than process, or policy. Scandal, power struggles and personal attacks all characterised an unfortunate episode in the Conservative’s preparations for the next national poll.

Yet the most interesting aspect of the events surrounding the attempt to deslect Liz Truss was not her affair, or Sir Jeremy Bagge’s vitriol. Rather, it was the way the Conservative party entrusts internal decision making to its local parties and how this fits with their commitment to localism.

Cameron rightly believes the candidates representing his party at the next general election should be reflective of the electorate. In practice, this means more women and ethnic minority candidates. Yet it is clear he doesn’t trust his party to deliver that outcome – A-lists and primaries, a novel way of controlling candidate selection from the centre, demonstrate this.

So Cameron is committed to localism. Except when local decision makers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions.

While it is difficult for voters to evaluate opposition proposals in the absence of a clear track record of action, they should look to how Cameron’s team implement localism within their own party as a foretaste of what localism might mean in practice under a Conservative government.

Being committed to localism only insofar as it delivers central aims isn’t really localism at all.

Reminder – blog launch event this week

‘From the Webbs to the Web’ will ask how we can best utilise the online world to develop policy and share ideas. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, founding members of the Fabian Society, could not have imagined the electronic resources we now have. But how can the Young Fabians seize the opportunity technology has presented us? Is wiki-policy and collaborative policy-making the future or is the web simply about tweeting to mobilise campaigners?

Speakers include: Jessica Asato, Acting Director, Progress; John Wood, TUC’s Touchstone blog; Alex Smith, Editor, LabourList.

The event will take place on Wednesday 18^th November, 6.15pm for 6.30pm – 8pm in Committee Room 6 of the House of Commons. Please email Adrian Prandle to reserve a place: aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk.

See the YF website for details of how to participate in the launch if you can’t make the event.

Follow us at twitter.com/youngfabians.

GUEST POST – Brown is in the right direction but the wrong gear on Afghanistan

We are inviting a series of guest posts to mark the official launch of the Young Fabian blog. YF members who would like to contribute should get in touch with Vice Chair, Adrian Prandle, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk.

Today we have Nick Maxwell, Young Fabian member, who looks at what Labour needs to do on Afghanistan, and how far the Prime Minister succeeded in his Mansion House speech last night.

Over the past few weeks, the public have seen the debate around Afghanistan get bogged down in glib comments about MOD bureaucracy and handwriting. They’ve witnessed seeming ambivalence toward a dubious election and the ‘rogue cop’ attack on the very troops tasked to train and build capacity in Afghanistan, making it easy to conclude that the cause is hopeless. Accordingly – following what seemed a hollow Armistice Day – the opinion polls showed the greatest level of opposition to the military commitment in Afghanistan since UK forces arrived. There should be no mistake; the government is on the edge of losing its credibility on Afghanistan and its wider military commitments.

In yesterday’s Mansion House speechthe Prime Minister was right to face down the challenge head on. He took big steps to pierce through the weekly PMQ roll call of the dead and respond to public concerns about Afghanistan. He needs to do more and Labour needs to do more. This speech must be the start of a renewed and sustained effort to explain, not just why British troops are in conflict in Afghanistan, but why a Labour government can be trusted to continue to lead our military obligations. To lose the debate about the government’s leadership in Afghanistan would be a betrayal of our armed services, it would undermine UK efforts to combat violent radicalism and support international development, and serve as a political own-goal against the Conservatives.

The Young Fabian International and Security Policy Forumhas convened vital discussion as part of this debate. To win the debate, the left needs to answer to a very political question, ‘why is the commitment of the military in Afghanistan a key Labour issue?’ This is a challenging question. After all, the left traditionally (and rightly) abhors neo-colonial ambition and leans to pacifism over militarism.

Brown rightly emphasised international and domestic security against terrorism as part of the answer. In addition, I suggest that the answer should cover 3 key elements.

First, as a social and internationalist party, Labour must set out how the UK’s presence in Afghanistan will support the economic and social development of the Afghan people. Building Afghan capacity is a moral imperative, following the disruption that NATO forces have brought to daily life, and is the only route to a sustainable future for the security of Afghanistan. It will require resources.

Second, a Labour government should articulate how it is best placed to work with our international allies, particularly within the EU. The Conservatives have exposed themselves as isolationist in the EU, a position which is damaging for how they are viewed in the US and in China. Given that the EU will shortly have a permanent Foreign Minister, a Labour government should be loud about being best placed to lead a progressive internationalist policy in the UK and the EU.

Third, perhaps most importantly, and disappointingly absent from Brown’s speech, a Labour government should be synonymous with high quality care for our troops – both in the field and on their return home, wounded or otherwise. Care for the military should be a Labour heartland issue. By and large it is working class sons who form the vast bulk of the casualties. This care can be expensive. Labour should be the first to say that the expense is an essential part of the costs of conflict, to be met without hesitation.

A compelling vision for why this country is committed in Afghanistan and why a Labour government can be trusted to lead that commitment will be as important a manifesto issue as jobs and the economy. Failing to articulate that vision lets down all those who have served and are serving in our armed forces and is an open door to defeat at the ballot box.