The New Generation: what do you think?

Young Fabian Vice Chair and editor of ‘The New Generation’, Adrian Prandle, introduces the Young Fabians’ 50^th anniversary pamphlet, which was launched by Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP in the House of Commons. We are very keen to hear what you think of the pamphlet – please let us know your thoughts by posting a comment. This is the first in a series of posts from the authors of ‘The New Generation’.

When Ed Miliband, in his first leader’s speech, told Labour Party Conference that a new generation had taken charge, ears pricked up. He spoke of a new generation ‘idealistic about our future’ and ‘not bound by the fear or the ghosts of the past.’

The Young Fabians – and the four essays in our just published 50^th anniversary pamphlet – epitomise this new generation. We bring not just a new generation of ideas to the centre-left, but also an optimism, an ambition, and a determination about what government and society together can achieve. As Douglas Alexander, in his speech to launch the pamphlet, said: “Don’t underestimate the motivation, inspiration and insight that young thinkers, activists and participants have in our collective future.”

At a time when the potential of a mass membership movement is being recalled, the Young Fabians are ahead of the game. Our involvement in Labour politics may focus on ideas and participating in change, but in publishing this work we have also developed a highly participatory model of policy development.

The four Young Fabians policy development groups that have been meeting since May have utilised the heartbeat of our organisation: members. Members who individually, and collectively, are both doers and thinkers. The belief in collectivity, central to the movement, should never again allow us to forget the value of participation.

This is a key theme of our work on Labour Party reform. From participating in a functional policy-making process, and participating in driving change in our communities, to ensuring a boost in participation of the full diversity of Labour’s members, we must speed up in replacing command and control with listen and learn as the basis for action.

And so, Young Fabian members, involved and empowered, have presented their policy ideas in a variety of fora: meetings, magazine articles, blog posts; to politicians, to experts, and to each other. We have run wiki-policy experiments, and held online meetings bringing in passion, expertise and experiences from the breadth of the country, not just from within the Westminster policy world.

The policy development groups met in a unique context: with Labour out of power for the first time in most Young Fabian members’ political lifetimes, coalition government may well have brought ‘a new politics’, and, still in the aftermath of the global economic crisis, public services begin to feel the harsh impact of the new government’s extensive and ideological spending cuts. The results are impressive, and the pamphlet pushes for party reform and offers policy recommendations across a diverse set of areas.

Change starts at home, which is why Jessica Studdert, Chair of the Young Fabian special project group, Transforming our Party, argues for a vibrant, diverse Labour Party, utilising its members to respond to the issues of the modern world with relevance and innovation and to provide a link between leadership and wider electorate.  In The path to green and equitable growth, Adam Short presents the case for a holistic approach to dealing with the interdependent challenges of energy, global governance, and developing economies and livelihoods. Chair of the Young Fabian Work and Families policy development group, Josie Cluer, calls for a proper definition of the fairness Labour represents, a new economic narrative, and a willingness to transform workplaces and family life. In the final contribution, Young Fabian members Bren Albiston and Dan Harkin discuss the interrelation of aspiration and education, and look for a commitment of involvement and participation from beyond the education sector – in families, in communities, in trade unions and in business – with the support, not control, of government. Each chapter is packed with ideas.

Take these ideas to your CLPs, your union branch meetings, your community campaign groups. Write about them, talk about them – and let us know what you think.

This pamphlet presents new ideas for a new leader of the Labour Party – but also for the whole movement. Change is needed and together we must participate in that change. The new generation is ready and able.

A similar version of this post was published on LabourList.

Out of the shadows and genuine contenders

Gosh, it’s like the start of the season isn’t it, when after several months of no action, a few last minute arrivals on transfer deadline day, and then finally you get to see the team that hopefully is going to lead you to glory. 

I maintain what I wrote over on the Progress blog at the end of the summer, that there is much for Labour to be optimistic about. That is not to say that times won’t be tough – they will – but to believe that we can build confidently from the position we are in.

Ed’s got a strong team. Number of women is pleasing and the other side are quite rattled if this offensive blog from Toby Young is anything to go by. A few surprises last night, but it’s already quite exciting to see the job titles next to the new names. Our leader began well last week of course when he forced Nick Brown not to stand for Chief Whip. 

Alan Johnson is a great choice for Shadow Chancellor. He will provide a stark contrast to George Osborne and, despite his prominent allegiances during the leadership election, will be fiercely loyal to his boss. Most of all, there seemed a risk that Labour’s most natural media performer was going to be buried away shadowing the Leader of the House. Here, he will be up front (last football metaphor, I promise) and the public face of Labour opposition to flawed Tory – ahem, Coalition – economic policy and its potentially devastating consequences. 

It’s good to see Yvette Cooper get a prominent role, though I think I would have kept her in domestic policy. Is Andy Burnham’s move from health to education a sign Ed isn’t going to make the national care service a central plank of his policy offer? Andy’s personal experiences and drive to challenge barriers to aspiration and achievement will make him a passionate voice on education. 

One of Ed’s big decisions was over Peter Hain. Did he promote a key ally or did he signal the new generation by appointing one of the other Welsh contenders who lost out? It looks to me like the re-appointment of Shaun Woodward to shadow Northern Ireland is aimed to mitigate Ed taking the former approach. Angela Eagle is a good choice for shadow chief secretary but previous post-holder Liam Byrne is hard done by not to get bigger job than shadow cabinet office minister. 

I was pleased to see John Healey do well last night and think he will succeed in both articulating new Labour health policy and attacking Andrew Lansley’s complex reforms of the NHS. 

Some early reflections then with plenty to stew over ahead of parliament’s return next week. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing them all get stuck in.

Let’s ‘AVe more important debates

Am I alone in hoping that the early months of Labour’s new leadership is not dominated by the upcoming referendum on electoral reform?

I don’t agree with much of Anthony Painter’s blog yesterday on this campaign, but I do agree with the comment he supplemented it with which suggested that it’s not going to split the Coalition. I think there’ll be much bigger fracture points both before and after, but more significantly believe that the electoral reform debate threatens to distract from the damage ideological cuts will be making to people’s lives. The new leader, whilst building a fresh and credible policy platform, must focus on what matters. And to the people suffering most from the change in government, the electoral system isn’t going to be top of their lists.

It’s interesting that the centrepiece of Anthony’s post is the case for making the ‘yes’ campaign a ‘no’ campaign on first past the post. It strikes me that this is because there is actually very little to be said in favour of the alternative vote. It isn’t PR, just simply FPTP with the an added platitude. The belief that having the ‘support’ (often by default and through reluctantly reassigned votes) of 50% of those who vote (not 50% of the potential electorate) in a constituency will somehow instantly change politics or MPs’ behaviour is without substance. First it unfairly burdens the majority of parliamentarians with the characteristics of the worst. And second, it assumes that needing a few more votes provides enough of a tipping point to shift the complacency he describes. Why would it?

The big strengths in FPTP are actually best contrasted with PR systems (genuine, effective single member constituencies for the whole of the house; and consequently – particularly with a recall mechanism – real lines of accountability between public and politician) so to say, as Anthony does, that there are only two arguments for FPTP is slightly disingenuous. Of course the contrast for the coming months though is with AV not PR.

The first of Anthony’s two straw men, that FPTP delivers clear outcomes, is, as above, relevant to a comparison with PR more than AV, which would achieve likewise. The second, the propensity of maverick politicians is not necessarily one I’d make.

I would argue, however, that the case for change has to justify the inevitable expense and disruption; the similarities between FPTP and AV are such that this is questionable. There’s not a long list of things ‘wrong’ with AV, 50% is no bad thing – but it’s not the magic bullet its proponents suggest. Rather it is anodyne. But that doesn’t present a strong argument for amending our electoral system.

Anthony omits the simplicity defence of FPTP. I personally think it’s an important one. I don’t for one minute buy the counter-argument that to say other electoral systems are complex is somehow patronising to the public at large and that such views deserve to stay in the Westminster village. Complexity is a genuine concern. As Vice Chair of the Young Fabians I may be said to be part of a Westminster village accused of looking down on the wider population, but my own recent experience is worth highlighting. I am afforded the rare luxury of being an undecided voter in the leadership election. I understand how AV works and am certain to vote. Yet the iterations of how I will vote have been rattling through my head for months now. Do I place 5 ranked votes? Do I just vote for the three I’d be comfortable with as leader? Do I vote my likely second or third preferred leader number one so as to ensure they help take out early another candidate I don’t want to be in the final two or three? Possibilities are endless …

If turnout drops as a result of a change to the electoral system then we’re left with the perversity of MPs being elected with a greater share of the vote (50+%) but, potentially, less actual votes from their constituents. Is that desirable?

Given all the talk of PR in the months leading to the general election, I was interested to see very early on that all five of Labour’s leadership candidates were openly (small c) conservative on electoral reform when not long before it had seemed an unstoppable bandwagon in party circles. I’m not going to be a passionate defender of FPTP, and I would not be unhappy with AV, but I won’t be jumping on the bandwagon of change for change’s sake or as a solution to a problem of which the electoral system was not a cause. I just don’t think it’s where the radical centre-left should be expending its energy.

Democracy – this is new

A delightful documentary was buried in the BBC4 schedule late last Sunday. Please Vote for Me remains on iPlayer over the weekend, and I’d urge you to watch it if you’ve got an hour free.

Weijun Chen’s film, in which he records schoolchildren in China undertaking an election for class monitor, is in equal measure funny, touching, disturbing and fascinating. In a country without national elections, how will the youngsters deal with the challenge of seeking office with democratic legitimacy?

It begins with their teacher explaining the process they are about to undertake, and indeed democracy itself: “This is new,” she understates. And it ends in tears as two of the candidates (unlike our recent election) have to deal with defeat.

In the end it is a landslide victory (I won’t spoil your enjoyment by telling you who wins) but the process which brings the class to this outcome is fascinating to observe.

There is something to be learnt about children and about human nature no doubt. But, ultimately, it is amazing – given the assumed lack of exposure these eight year olds in Wuhan, the capital city of the central Chinese province of Hubei, have had to democratic political processes – how quickly the youngsters adapt to politics, and in particular, how similarly they adopt the characteristics we can associate with politicians.

This is evident in the language they use, the way they interact with each other, (look out for attack-laden debates), the candidates’ grasp of deal-making and carrot-dangling (and, sadly, bribery and lies), their understanding of the need to consult with the electorate, the eagerness of others to advise and fulfil their own ambitions (primarily the kids’ parents), and a macho male aggression. Plus the frailty and insecurity political candidates can display in private. It was not hard to make the leap from despondent child head down and holding hands with father to the Western politician being reassured and looked after by adviser or bag carrier.

A remarkable piece of work; it’s not hard to see why it won awards around the world. It’s not a new film – indeed I understand the BBC first showed it a couple f years ago – but if you’ve not come across it before, I’d highly recommend a viewing in the next couple of days.

You can watch a trailer of Please Vote for Me here.

Seriously, what are MPs for?

It struck me when reading the post by my colleague, Vincenzo Rampulla, on Nick Clegg’s Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that there is something else missing from this debate that was almost entirely absent too from the commentary on the expenses crisis last year.

Really it’s the first principles of making the sort of administrative changes IPSA has led, and constitutional changes, now being sought by the Coalition government: the role of MPs in 2010, and beyond.

The work of an MP has evolved and it seems incredulous that changes to how the offices of MPs are financed and, right now, how many people an MP should represent, are being pushed through without proper discussion; in parliament or amongst the general public.

Surely we should be asking what, in the twenty-first century, MPs are for, seeking to reaffirm why the public need them, and agree somewhat on what they are expected to do, before we determine how many are needed and how we provide funds for them to carry out their duties and represent their constituents?

The evolution has seen a massive increase in casework and the huge demands of extensive scrutiny and pressure led by mass media, and latterly, new media. The British public – but particularly those people that rely upon governments more like the last than the ideological service-cutters currently residing in Downing Street – deserve to openly discuss where the focus of their representatives’ work should be before they are told they have to get in the queue behind more people.

Shortly before parliament was dissolved in April, retiring Labour MP, Mark Todd, in a criticism of parliament’s failure to address this core issue, conveyed the nature of change:

First, what are the understood functions of a Member? In Churchill’s definition, published in the 1950s, the role was threefold, and in order of priority. I have edited it to remove the explicit sexism from his text. He said that the roles of a Member were: to exercise judgment in the interests of Great Britain; to act as a representative, but not a delegate, of his or her constituents; and to serve his or her party’s interests.

The Select Committee on Modernisation’s report on the role of Back-Bench Members, published in 2007, set out the following functions. Unlike Churchill’s, they are not in priority order. They were: supporting their party in votes in Parliament; representing and furthering the interests of their constituency; representing individual constituents and taking up their problems and grievances; scrutinising and holding the Government to account and monitoring, stimulating and challenging the Executive; initiating, reviewing and amending legislation; and contributing to the development of policy, whether in the Chamber, Committees or party structures, and promoting public understanding of party policy.

He goes on to highlight one such moment in time that accelerated change:

An MP serving between 1935 and 1950 said that, ”before 1939, unless there was some controversy afoot, I rarely received more than twenty letters a week…But after the election of 1945, everything was changed…suddenly the MP ceased to be a politician and potential statesman and became an official of the welfare state. Thousands wanted houses; old people wanted pensions; ex-service men wanted jobs; everybody wanted something and ‘write to your MP’ became a cliché”.

But it wasn’t the only instance – change has been both rapid, and inconsistently distributed amongst constituencies.

IPSA has set out its stall. Instead of taking the moral and long-term approach, the new independent authority took the populist approach of clamping down on ‘expenses’ (and this did need action even if I may not have chosen the exact same route to doing so myself) without considering the very real need to provide finances for MPs to act in their constituents’ interests. The media were allowed to get away with a characterisation that most MPs were on the take rather than a sensible dialogue being cultivated about the need for (fairly paid) staff with the resources to do their jobs. I sense no movement here.

But the Coalition’s intentions to reduce the number of MPs present an opportunity to discuss why – beyond a simplistic, yet dubious, argument of savings to the public purse – British people’s representation should change, not least as the reforms are not linked to a democratisation of parliament’s upper house. I suggest to the prime minister that this country needs effective representation, not less representation. Debating and consulting on the role of MPs would help determine whether I, or Mr Cameron, is right. If the expenses crisis taught us anything, it is that Britons very firmly expect more of their MPs. It is hard to see how the Coalition’s reforms can possibly provide this.

Young Fabians nationwide participating in new policy development

Building upon the success of 2009’s YF Policy Forums, Young Fabian Vice Chair, Adrian Prandle, established four new Policy Development Groups to answer some of the key questions the centre-left needs to address in order to retool following Labour’s general election defeat. 

If the Fabian Society is about ideas, and the Young Fabians is about the next generation, then the YF 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 at school 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 four groups – Livelihoods & Resource Security (looking at development and foreign policy); Work & Families; Aspiration & Equality (focusing on education policy); and a special project group, Transforming Our Party – have Young Fabian members, with a range of interests, expertises and experiences,  signed up in their hundreds.

The PDGs are 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/or Labour Party 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 important and influential.

But they’re not just about influence. The strength of the PDGs lies within our membership. Recognising the need to harness the talents of all of our members, we have redoubled 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, as well as attending meetings in person.

And the PDGs have hosted a first for the Young Fabians – online meetings. We’re not using webcams just yet, but members are finding the chatroom software both productive and easy to use. Plus the work of the groups benefits: the breaking of geographic boundaries brings in wider perspectives from the length and breadth of Britain than meetings in London often allow.

We are looking into using wikis for policy development and remain open to other ideas members want to suggest. Young Fabians are getting involved in whichever ways suit them best – members in Manchester have organised their own meeting to feed into the discussions of the Transforming Our Party PDG.

The PDGs will report later in the year so it’s not too late to join in. If you’d like to participate in any one of the PDGs, or would like to find out more about their latest work then please email Adrian, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk, or visit the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website: http://tiny.cc/yfpdgs.

Burnham backs Young Fabian pamphlet at last night’s hustings

Lots of interest in Young Fabian activity plus the signing up of new members at our exhibition stand; a sell-out crowd; and the adoption by one of the Labour leadership candidates of policy from the international chapter of the YF publication, Fast Forward (more of that later), all made for a successful evening.

It was a good hustings – audience members like myself who had been at Saturday’s event in the same venue were treated to some different content as well as some of the same words, ideas and pitches – and in my opinion each of the candidates improved upon Saturday. What was particularly positive was the honest, comradely, and occasionally humourous spirit in which the candidates approached the discussion. Long may that continue.

Amongst the same content as Saturday was a discussion of electoral reform. It’s amusing to see how far this issue appears to have turned around over the course of 2010. From the advocacy of PR (in whatever form) seeming to be a near-consensus of the left just a few months ago, we now find ourselves with all five of our leadership candidates fairly (small c) conservative on the issue and against such a move. I lean towards the argument of one of the contenders that this is not something that most of the country cares deeply and worries about, but from all I have read online this year it seems a clear difference between party membership and leadership. Maybe that’s just because those who favour FPTP or, to a lesser extent, AV, have just been more quiet. I know I have.

There’s a very fine balance to be had with regards to taking on board party members’ views and providing leadership which may differ. It’s a challenge they all face during this campaign and one to watch closely. But it’s also a reason why those candidates advocating and elaborating on the ideal of party reform, in particular around policy formation, will likely win votes.

In terms of new content it was pleasing to see the impact of the conversation that I, and a couple of executive committee colleagues, had with Andy Burnham on Saturday at the Compass conference, when Andy came to say hello at our exhibition stand. Andy left with a copy of Fast Forward, the pamphlet which was a product of 2009′s YF policy forums and tonight backed the call within the edited volume’s foreign policy chapter for an agreed framework for interventionism.

The successor programme of work – the 2010 YF Policy Development Groups – which I am managing, is underway and Young Fabian members are now taking part in meetings to develop new ideas under four themes. Check our website for more, it’s being constantly updated, and I promise to post here again on the groups  soon. It’s not too late to join any of them if you want to play a part and take your ideas to the highest reaches of the party.

Adrian Prandle

Vice Chair, Young Fabians

Leadership candidates haven’t quite understood the lesson of immigration and the election

The latest leadership candidate to suggest immigration was a cause of Labour’s defeat at the polls on May 6th, today. Andy Burnham follows Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, and David Miliband. Diane Abbott has also commented on immigration, though with a different perspective.

I’ve had some thoughts rattling around my head so it was interesting to hear the issue discussed at a seminar featuring none of the leadership contenders (yep, such events do still exist) during Progress’ conference on Saturday.

First thing to say is that it is good the conference showed that we – left-wing activists and Labour’s political elites – are prepared to talk, on a wider scale, about immigration. But unfortunately, it is coming too late. In the lead-up to, and the aftermath of, the general election, polling shows immigration as the second top issue, behind only the economy. Yet the national campaign and leadership said very little about it.

Between the campaign, the party machine, and the political leadership, the decision was clearly taken that set-piece events would, as much as possible, avoid the general public and significant efforts would be invested in filling rooms with (often young) enthusiastic party members. There was to be a distance between Gordon Brown and the undecided electorate. But if Labour is not willing to connect with the people of this country, and talk about the issues people are concerned about in their communities, then who is? Feeling this was the wrong approach, I grew frustrated some time before the Rochdale visit: when the problem blew up following Brown’s encounter with Gillian Duffy. She could have mentioned any issue and drawn a similar reaction from any of the party leaders, but what was very evident to me was the reluctance of our party leader to talk to ‘unvetted’ members of the public and an unwillingness to engage in significant conversation on an issue he himself appeared uncomfortable with. It was this, rather than the fact it happened to be immigration policy, that appeared to me to be most problematic.

Prior to this Saturday’s conference, with the prevalence of leadership candidates’ comments, I began to question which seats we actually lost because of immigration. Andy Burnham’s interview today suggests that “it was the biggest doorstep issue in constituencies where Labour lost”. I’d be interested to hear which seats he puts in this category. Because I think there’s plenty of evidence of constituencies where immigration is a big issue which returned Labour MPs. The two seats in Barking and Dagenham; Birmingham Hodge Hill where Liam Byrne doubled his majority; Slough; Leicester West – and so on.

So, when Ben Page of Ipsos-MORI told Saturday’s sideroom session that his polling did not show immigration as a big reason for voting Tory and that it was actually only the fourth highest issue on election day, I was not too surprised. The reason being that the effect immigration has on the Labour campaign was not necessarily a problem of policy but more likely one of the way we campaigned. That Labour’s punishment was for the unwillingness to listen, connect and engage – whatever the issue. Most people were not voting on immigration. But they were noting the way Labour’s leadership handled the issue and were making judgments on how the party might handle other big concerns. Those seats I highlight above can point to success despite this because candidates there were willing to talk about the issue and run strong local campaigns. They did not even do this in the same way as each other (Margaret Hodge and Jon Cruddas presented different analyses and approaches in the same borough) but they were open to talk about what their constituents were concerned about.

Sally Keeble, who lost her Northampton South seat, argued that we shouldn’t over-emphasise the impact of immigration as an issue in her defeat, and Liam Byrne told the audience that it was important to avoid reactionary conclusions on the effect of welfare and immigration. His research suggests that people had been feeling pressure on their earnings prior to the global economic crash for up to five years, causing people to be “living in limbo when looking for lift off”. (Peter Kellner, in the conference’s opening plenary, said that YouGov evidence, found BNP and UKIP voters feeling very similarly.) These people thought, Byrne’s analysis goes, that they could turn to the Labour Party to be on their side. The central thrust of my argument is that because of the way the national campaign was run, many voters were left wondering.

Clearly that’s not good enough and is something our next leader will want to think about.

Postscript:
Halfway through writing this post I cam across a news story from last week with the view of the last immigration minister, Phil Woolas, and some quotes from Patrick Diamond, who worked on the manifesto from No.10 (and was seen picking up a copy of the YF Fast Forward pamphlet on Saturday). It is worth a read. What Patrick says is not dissimilar from my argument; but where he defines the party’s ‘cultural ethos’ in terms of Labour issues and non-Labour issues, I am defining it as an approach to campaigning (and perhaps also governing).

Most of the leadership contenders have highlighted the need to look at how the party organises itself – the sooner the debate gets into detail on this, the better.

Amidst uncertainty, Young Fabian success

Whilst we wait and see what arrangement emerges to govern the country, it’s worth reflecting on the impact of Young Fabians during (the first?) general election of 2010.

Over the short campaign, we led YF members to a series of campaign days – and we can see some excellent results and a 100% record:

In Walthamstow, after mid-campaign concern of a post-debate Clegg effect, Labour-Coop candidate Stella Creasy won with a swing in her favour.

Jeremy Corbyn held the safe seat of Islington North – I’ll report later on how the Young Fabian council candidates we supported that day in marginal wards got on.

Our driver for the Hope Not Hate day of action in east London, Jon Cruddas, saw off the threat of the BNP and Conservatives to be elected MP for Dagenham and Rainham.

In one of the worst results of the night for David Cameron’s Conservatives and Michael Ashcroft’s wallet, Karen Buck held on to her Westminster North seat from a much-flouted Cameroon despite difficult boundary changes.

Rushanara Ali took back Bethnal Green and Bow for Labour with a 5 figure majority that helped push Respect into third place.

And our final campaign day – in Harrow West – saw another Conservative disappointment and the return of Gareth Thomas.

Congratulations to all the candidates, and to all the Young Fabians who joined our campaign days over the last month or so for an immense amount of hard work and enthusiasm – it made a difference. Other good news comes from Airdrie and Shotts where Young Fabian executive committee member, Pamela Nash was elected, winning more votes than John Reid had in that seat in 2005 – well done Pamela! As the first ever current Young Fabian executive member to sit in parliament, we are sure Pamela will bring something special to her role of Parliamentary Officer. Elsewhere on our executive committee, in one of the last results to be announced, James Green put in a good showing in the Lib Dem-Tory marginal of Cheltenham – the seat saw a considerable swing to the Lib Dems, suggesting many of James’ supporters opted to vote tactically. And Rebecca Rennison, standing in South West Wiltshire did well to keep the Labour to Tory swing below the national average in this Conservative stronghold.

It’s particularly pleasing for me personally to see members of the Young Fabian delegation to Obama’s presidential campaign, which I organised, go from strength to strength. Both Pamela and James were there as were others who have stood for election and re-election to local government. No doubt they put to use some of the ideas and inspiration from Ohio in their own campaigns. I’m sure we’ll hear more from many of these people soon.

Congratulations again and thanks to all. It is beginning to look as though we will know quicker than I had expected how the new government will be formed. Let’s hope that the values we hold firm as Fabians are central to whatever programme emerges, and are carried forward by a Labour-led government.

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that ahead of each of the telephone debates we undertook telephone canvassing. For the first two debates this was to Tooting, and for the final event, Hammersmith. More success! Sadiq Khan and Andy Slaughter held off high profile Tory challengers.

UPDATE 2: News from Islington as promised. Congratulations to former Young Fabian chairs, Kate Groucutt (who finished top of the ballot in Mildmay ward where Joe Calouri was also elected for Labour) and Jessica Asato (who was elected as a councillor for St George’s ward) and commiserations to another former chair, Conor McGinn and friend of the Young Fabians, Alex Smith of LabourList, and his fellow candidate Gary Heather, who missed out in the two wards we visited last month. It was a good might in Islington though with Labour regaining control of the council with just shy of three quarters of the seats. And congratulations also to Mark Rusling, another former Young Fabian chair, who was elected to Waltham Forest council – it was Mark’s ward we campaigned in when we visited Walthamstow right at the start of the short campaign.

This is where you should campaign tonight and tomorrow

Good luck for the final 28 hours for those of you hitting the campaign trail for Labour, especially those who are candidates themselves.

We’ve listed the seats that need your help on the Young Fabian website. There are key seats nationwide. If none of those listed are within easy travelling distance then you can enter your phone number on the Labour Party website, and someone will give you a call to help you out.

Offering even a short amount of your time will be appreciated by the local campaign teams, whether it is your first time or you have been campaigning for all of the last few weeks.

Do let us know how you get on …