What Not to learn from the Obama Campaign.

By Maisie Anderson.

There has been substantial coverage and analysis of the 2012 Obama campaign amongst UK progressives since his victory in early November.  As a veteran of the Nevada ‘ground game’, I think it makes a lot of sense to pay close attention to the way the campaign was run. I certainly learned a huge amount about innovative campaigning techniques during the two months I spent in the USA, and I am keen to tell Young Fabians and Labour Party members about my experiences.

I do, however, have a concurrent concern that we are putting too much emphasis on importing ideas and techniques directly from the USA. Hackneyed as the George Bernard Shaw quote is, we are ‘two countries separated by a common language’. If I noticed anything whilst I was out there, it was that I was first and foremost a foreigner. The UK still retains an utterly unique cultural identity to that of the United States and our political campaigning culture should continue to reflect this.

The obscene amount of money washing around the 2012 Presidential campaign is the most obvious demonstration of something to which we certainly should not aspire. Yes, the money paid for flashy online databases, branded t-shirts, iPhones and laptops, but it also paid for innumerable attack-ads and jet fuel for Air Force One to zip Obama to countless glitzy rallies and media events. I witnessed a vast amount of waste on the campaign and it was far from a ‘sustainable’ operation.

The famous ‘ground game’ should also be viewed with a critical eye. Just because it worked so well for Obama, it does not mean that it would translate well in Britain. The campaign relied on a greater level of intrusion than we are accustomed to in the UK. As a canvasser, it was a gift to know the name, age, voting history and family connections of the residents behind every door that I knocked on. But I was also uncomfortably aware that we were being extremely intrusive, almost ‘big brother-like’ at times.

Furthermore, it is all too easy to mythologise the community organising techniques used in the campaign and consequently to lose sight of quite how tightly things were being controlled from the centre. Targets, techniques and strategies were constantly being rolled out from HQ – this was not grassroots politics in its truest sense.

Rather, the campaign leadership took methods from community organising, combined them with data analysis fit for an intelligence agency, and used their new hybrid concoction to their advantage. Clever? Undoubtedly. Effective? Massively. But surely a rather strange fit for the British Labour movement.

Finally, whilst senior Labour politicians continue to hone their public speaking skills and improve their media personas, they must be careful not to imitate the Americans too closely. Let’s be honest, ‘fired up and ready to go’ just sounds cringeworthy
in a British accent! Most importantly, good presentation and confident delivery should never be used as a substitute for the quality of what politicians are actually saying. We expect different demonstrations of gravitas from our public figures than on the other side of the Atlantic, something that it’s all too easy to forget.

Mind you, Obama rolling out Katy Perry at his political rallies was a genuine stroke of genius. Nothing better than Katy in a skin-tight ballot paper dress to get floating voters to the polls. I know she’s American but Ed, maybe it’s already time for ‘your people’ to start talking to ‘her people’…

Maisie Anderson is a Young Fabians Member.

Fighting the far right

The battle appears to be won. In 2010, the BNP were routed in Barking and Dagenham. The number of BNP councillors has plummeted from a high of 56 to just 3. Britain’s most powerful, and most threatening, fascist party seems to be in a state of terminal decline.

Elsewhere, the English Defence League is also in retreat after a period when it seemed destined to replace the BNP as Britain’s foremost far right organisation.

The EDL’s appeal lies in its ‘anti-politics’ approach to campaigning. Members engage in marches and demonstrations, rather than debate and canvassing. However, leader Stephen Lennon is attempting to drive the organisation down the parliamentary route trod by the BNP in an alliance with the British Freedom Party. This has caused the movement to fracture and split as grassroots members rebel against the leadership’s striving to make the EDL a ‘respectable’ party.

However, while the threat of a fascist renaissance in Britain has subsided for now, the underlying attitudes and issues that nourish the far-right remain present in society.

Polling conducted by anti-fascist organisation ‘Hope not Hate’ revealed that 10% of the population can be classified as ‘latently hostile’ to those racially and culturally different from themselves, and 13% as exhibiting an ‘active enmity’ towards the ‘other.’

Insecurity about the future, and concern that British identity is being steadily eroded by a wave of foreign immigrants, are the key
drivers of such attitudes. While very few can summarise what Britishness means (besides drinking tea and queuing), it is something that is felt to be under attack by multiculturalism and the political doctrine of tolerance.

Cosmopolitan liberals may shrug their shoulders at this concern, rightly pointing out that ours is a nation of immigrants and that the freedoms Britons hold dear are protected by law and not about to wiped out by a radical Islamic agenda or a tidal wave of Polish plumbers. However, the fear that British society is evolving out of all recognition is deep-rooted in the sort of constituencies the BNP prey upon. One Londoner said:

“One of the problems of academics is that they don’t understand how local people feel…I get very wobbly when I get on a bus and there are fifteen people with burkhas on….[the growth of immigrant communities] does wind people up.”

Progressives would be foolish to ignore local people’s concerns and brand all those who fear immigrants as ignorant or racist.

Fortunately, Labour is in a unique position to help change attitudes and strengthen the campaign against fascism. Aimy Saunders, a campaigner with ‘Hope not Hate,’ says:

“The BNP has been more successful in areas where the Labour Party has taken people for granted. 49% of BNP voters used to vote Labour but felt disillusioned with the Labour party and what they stood for at that time.”

The rest are typically first-time voters or non-voters, who cast their ballot for the BNP out of despair that mainstream parties simply don’t understand their concerns.

Labour activists need to take to the streets- as they did in Barking and Dagenham- to win that 49% back for the party and prevent non-voters from supporting fascists at election time.

Local parties should also forge alliances with campaigning groups like ‘Hope not Hate’ to promote ‘community resilience.’

“[At ‘Hope not Hate’] we’re building community links so that when times are hard and the BNP comes
knocking local residents will be able to respond and not be as influenced as much by their ideas,” says Aimy.

This means linking local schools, clubs, and religious collectives together in community-wide projects designed to strengthen a sense of fellowship. In Luton, Dagenham, and Croydon where the BNP have made inroads in the past, ‘Hope not Hate’ has founded community newspapers and sponsored local meetings and events to inspire a spirit of neighbourliness.

Local Constituency Labour Parties and Trade Union branches are well positioned to support such work in areas susceptible to the economic and social pressures that lure people to the far right.

Ignoring the threat of fascism and claiming that far right parties have been routed once and for all is arrogant at best and dangerous at worst. Parties like the BNP may rise, fall, then disappear, but the values they stand for endure.

There is, therefore, a strong moral case for Labour to jointhe struggle against fascism. If we claim to be the party of inclusiveness, we cannot turn a blind eye when attitudes toxic to the ideal of a free and equal society are allowed to find political expression.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Is the London-centric media blogosphere stifling opportunity?

There is a fundamental problem at the heart of politics: inequality of opportunity.

With youth unemployment at record levels, a retracting public sector (with the public sector being key to graduate retention outside London) and an economy still struggling to achieve and maintain growth, many young people find themselves having to fight like never before to gain any sort of recognition or opportunities.

This is a significant problem for all young people, regardless of their chosen career path or geographical location. However, for young people seeking a career in politics, these factors are compounded by one enormous obstacle: Westminster.

There has been significant controversy recently around the practice of using unpaid interns in Westminster and, without getting into the morals of the issue, there is an underlying problem that would not be solved even if all interns were paid – namely, that it is still felt the route to a full-time job in politics is by being in London and working in Parliament.

Why, when the argument is currently about how to ensure these opportunities are open to all and not exploitative, are we so comfortable with the idea that the only path to having real influence or impact on politics is by living in one specific city in a country of 60 million plus?

Surely the Labour Party, as a party that believes in unanimous equality and has spent such a long time trying to rebalance geographical economic disparities, should be deeply uncomfortable with a reality in which the only way to ‘get on’ in politics – if you live outside London – is by moving there.

As Regions Officer for the Young Fabians, I find this deeply problematic. With a current system where opportunity and influence is so heavily centralised, no matter how well-paid internships may be, if they always require people to be based in London then they close the door to a large number of people who can not/do not want to move to the South East.

As a party, the Labour Party should have a problem with the idea that ‘the only way is London’, especially as this problem is not confined to Politics. The BBC should be lauded for its attempt to move significant numbers of jobs out of London; Manchester is a modern, cosmopolitan, internationally-competitive city, yet the way a large number of BBC executives have reacted to the move you would think they were being exiled to the furthest reaches of the globe.

But attempts remain to address this incredible imbalance in prospects and to give people the opportunity to make an impact and make a career for themselves outside of London.

Conferences like Netroots, though inaugurally based in London (let’s hope for somewhere north of Watford next year, eh?) are an important step to developing a UK-wide political system because they enable activists, bloggers (a non-geographically bounded activity) and campaigners to learn important skills that they can take back with them to their own areas of the country and use to make a difference and an impact in their own communities and in turn develop their own career and profile.

Experts have previously written on how activists can develop a significant online presence for little cost, such as Luke Bozier on Left Foot Forward, and this is clearly something that can be done anywhere in the UK. In a similar vein, this year’s Young Fabian executive is keen to ensure members from across the country are valued and supported in their work, and as such has arranged a number of workshops to help individuals develop their skills and abilities.

We’ve already held a blog and magazine writing workshop in January, led by Paul Richards and Hopi Sen. This gave attendees a chance to gain skills that can they can use no matter where they are in the country. On Saturday 12th March, the Young Fabians will continue this theme with ‘Getting Noticed in the North’, at the Friends Meeting House in Manchester.

Full details of the event, which will be addressed by Shadow Culture Secretary Ivan Lewis, can be found here. Topics covered will include making an impact on Social Media; getting your local campaign noticed on the national stage; what makes a good political website; and what national editors are looking for from regional writers.

Sam Bacon is Regions Officer of the Young Fabians. This blog was originally posted on Left Foot Forward.

Supporting the Oldham ‘Tweekender’

2011: a new year. But almost as soon as the Christmas trees have come down (well, if yours has – I’m still getting around to it…) and the after-effects of New Year’s Eve revelry subside, our political cycle has kicked back into gear. In fact things are getting under way so quickly this year that on the first ‘proper’ weekend of the new year, (8/9 January) we have the first Young Fabian Campaign Corner event of 2011.

The whole Young Fabian Executive Committee is committed to developing Young Fabian activity and membership across the UK,  and particularly outside of London.  As Regions Officer (and a member outside of London!) I’m particularly focussed on this.  So I’m really pleased that the first event our members can participate in during 2011 is happening outside of London.

And it won’t surprise you to learn that the campaign day is taking place in the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency.  In total, four members of the Young Fabian executive will be heading out onto the streets to talk to the voters and fight hard to ensure that our left wing values are getting through to people on the doorstep.

Given the early date of the by-election (it’s next week!) we haven’t had much time to make you all aware of this weekends plans.  But on the flip side, this does also mean that this weekend activists will be coming from across the country as it is the last weekend before polling.

The Young Fabians will be joining forces with others as part of Young Fabian member Kevin Peel’s ‘Oldham Tweekender’ idea, which aims to “organise the biggest ever mobilisation of Labour activists from across the country via Facebook and Twitter”.

However, news of the campaign event has spread far beyond just Twitter and Facebook, and activists from unions, young labour, LGBT Labour, London Labour and now the Young Fabians will be heading to Oldham this weekend to make sure the Coalition government gets a New Year’s message from the voters of Oldham…

Activists will be meeting at the Oldham Labour HQ at 11am for the morning session and 1pm for the afternoon one on both Saturday and Sunday.

All Young Fabian members and supporters are welcome.

• For more details contact Vincenzo Rampulla (vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk) if you live in London and Sam Bacon (sbacon@youngfabians.org.uk) if you live outside London or visit the Oldham Tweekender Facebook page.
• The Labour Staff Network has organised a coach from London to Oldham on Monday 10 January, leaving London at 8am and returning late the same evening. If you are interested in a space on the coach, please e-mail labourstaffnetwork@parliament.uk.

Empowering voters – the argument for AV

In this guest post, Young Fabian member James Roberts puts the case for supporting AV.

There is something intrinsically fair about the idea that the percentage of seats that a party has in parliament should be at least approximately equal to the percentage of people who hold corresponding views in the country at large. In contrast, there can be little argument that for a party to secure a majority of 65 (and 55.2% of the seats), as Labour did in 2005, with the support of only roughly 20% of the electorate, is undemocratic. This is partly due to an inherent bias towards the incumbent and partly due to the low turnout that year, but mostly down to the strange and quaintly simplistic voting system at use in the UK: First Past The Post (FPTP).

However, the only reform on offer in the near future is a switch to the Alternative Vote (AV). The distortions inherent in FPTP are well known, and while it is rather less well known that AV can lead to even bigger distortions, it does result in a considerable increase in the number of marginal constituencies and a majority of people’s votes counting, as opposed to the huge potential for wasted votes under FPTP. Most of the numerical arguments have been made and so instead I will try to present the cultural arguments in favour of reform.

Wheras the battle now is between the ability of each party to raise funds in order to swamp a small number of swing voters with material and the appearance of local activity, the deconcentration of electioneering from marginal seats can only increase the power of the individual to make their choices based on the needs of the local community.

The first post-independence Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, a Fabian socialist, made the case that democracy itself is not a ticket to the elysian fields, but is the very medium in which we, if we believe ourselves to be democrats and socialists, have to and should operate: “Democracy is good… because other systems are worse… But merely saying that democracy will solve all problems is utterly wrong. Problems are solved by intelligence and hard work.”

How can we condone continuing to support an antiquated and clearly badly-representative system? Even the joint leader of the German Communist Party in the 1920′s, Rosa Luxemburg, knew the importance of frequent and meaningful elections for maintaining a healthy public discourse: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

The critics of AV will point out that the trend of falling turnout in Britain is bad enough already, without introducing any ‘fiendishly complex’ reforms that will ‘put people off voting’. On the contrary, it is by providing people with real choices and empowering them with decisions that can actually shape their own lives and their communities, that we can expect to see an increase in voter turnout. The critics will also point out that AV will lead to ‘consensus politics’, often pointing out the example of Italy’s record in (not) maintaining coalitions. This is less about the system itself however than the political culture of a region. Sweden has had a form of Proportional Representation (PR) since the 1930s which has resulted in the Social Democratic Party controlling the agenda of the ruling coallition. This has led until recently to a powerful social democratic consensus and some of the best rates of equality in the developed world, with Sweden (alongside its other Scandinavian neighbors) regularly placing in the top 3 in indices of political and economic freedom.

Before and during the UK 2010 general election, there were very few people who voted for the Liberal Democrats under the belief that they were a party of the centre-right, and in some ways they have succeeded in becoming a ‘moderating influence’ on some of the most regressive aspects of Conservative policy. Even on one of the Lib Dem flagship issues, tuition fees, we see that a considerable number of Lib Dem MPs are prepared to defy the whip and vote against any increase. While it might seem distasteful in today’s political climate to work with the Liberal Democrats, AV could only work to increase the chances of being able to rely on the ‘progressive majority’ that so many voters believed in before the election.

Eventually, with a switch to a more proportional system, such as a form of Additional Member System (AMS) which I myself favour, we could see many of the eurosceptic members of the Conservatives join the likes of UKIP. Meanwhile, it is possible that the gains the far left and the Greens would make might come at the expense of Labour and the Lib Dems, but it is unlikely that a coalition of the left could arise without Labour forming the lynchpin of such a force, as in Sweden.

If we vote against AV in the referendum in May, we do so only out of fear, and yet it will be our undoing. The malaise which has afflicted turnout and general trust in politics in the UK is amplified by the ineffectiveness of our voting system. The thing that people disliked about Labour towards the end of the last government was that politics became something that was done to people, rather than something people did for themselves. Cameron has proposed the ‘big society’ as a hazy way to tap into this desire for localism; we can go far beyond this rhetoric and instead of expecting the army of volunteers to appear, actually empower people to make the changes they want to see for themselves. This is what the Labour movement has always been about. This is the kind of issue we as a party have to put to the forefront of our campaign. This is the political extension of the work done by the co-operative movement and can only result in greater levels of equality of income and opportunity.

But only if we vote ‘Yes’ in May.

This was originally posted on the Merseyside Fabians blog.

Woolas-gate revisited: ‘us and them’

The whole Woolas affair has highlighted that Labour MPs can sometimes do stupid things – like, for instance, knowingly publishing false statements about your opponent to get elected. Equally as stupid has been the response of many Labour MPs in support of Woolas. Chief-amongst-idiots is Graham Stringer MP, who has been the public face of PLP support for Mr Woolas.

He said in an interview with John Pieenar on BBC 5Live last Tuesday:

“The court has come to one conclusion…Actually the court shouldn’t be interfering in the democratic process in this way anyway…And if they have done the position of the party should be to support Phil…Constituencies that are marginal in general elections are not Sunday school outings…candidates from all parties occasionally cross the lines in the heat of those elections…It’s not [a matter of] agreeing with every word [that Woolas published in his leaflet]…it’s recognizing that even if he crossed the line, the court should not have intervened…There are important democratic principles involved here.”

And there have been many similar misguided statements along these lines in recent days – that it is for electorates, not the judiciary to decide the result of democratic elections. See here and here for example.

There appear to me to be three strong objections to this view:

1. Firstly, is the outcome of an election in which candidates knowingly publish lies about their opponents to win truly democratic? Surely democracy is about more than a mathematical exercise? Democracy is about choice and true choice can only come when we have a reasonable expectation that electioneering is not based on falsehoods. The legitimacy of the democratic process is undermined if that choice is effectively removed from us.
2. Secondly, why should MPs be above the law? If legislation exists which prohibits certain conduct during electioneering, then it is right that MPs are subject to that law and its consequences (like being banned from being an MP for 3 years – the statutory punishment for illegal practices such as those the courts found Mr Woolas guilty of). I’m actually enraged by the thought that there are sitting MPs who believe they should not be subject to the laws applicable to everyone else. Mr Stringer appears to forget he works for the electorate, not the other way round.
3. Thirdly, it appears to be beyond the wit of Mr Stringer (and others) that the body which creates legislation is the legislature (i.e. MPs – that’s you Mr Stringer!). If Mr Stringer and the rest don’t like the legislation which was applied in the Woolas case, then they should – as others argue – try and repeal that legislation in the House of Commons.

Today we discovered Woolas’ appeal will likely hinge on how the phrase “personal character and conduct” was interpreted by the court in the context of this issue. What hasn’t been disputed – but we learnt in the original judgement – is that the material that Woolas published was knowingly false.

If Woolas wins, it will be a pyrrhic victory – he will have knowingly lied to get elected (and admitted it) but lied in such a way as to avoid falling foul of the technicalities of the law.

Hardly a great advertisement for Labour, or for our democracy.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians.

Woolas-gate

Today,  news of a fresh twist in the Phil Woolas affair: members of the Parliamentary Labour Party are furious at Harriet Harman for effectively disowning Woolas, irrespective of the outcome of a potential judicial review into the judgement of the special election court last week which declared his election void.

Moreover, some of them are raising a ‘fighting fund’ to help Woolas challenge the ruling.

I’m given to understand – and the news today seems to confirm it – that Phil Woolas is held in quite high regard amongst many of his (former?) PLP colleagues.  While I have no reason to doubt that Woolas is a good friend to many of them, I think the PLP are letting personal relationships cloud their political judgement.

• Firstly, the election court judgement (pages 39-41) is quite unequivocal in its assessment of the facts against what is a very high watermark to declare an illegal practice has been committed. Evidence uncovered by the court portrays quite underhand electoral tactics by Woolas’ team. For example:

“The Respondent’s diary and the email correspondence between members of the Respondent’s election team, including the Respondent, explain why the Respondent was willing to make statements in the truth of which he had no reasonable grounds to believe. By the last week of the campaign, after the Prime Minster’s confrontation with Mrs. Duffy, he was pessimistic as to his chances of success in his own election. “I can’t see Labour recovering from this nationally; we may come third. Locally we will be very lucky to hang on”. His agent, Mr. Fitzpatrick, was very pessimistic. “I am convinced that it’s game over.” Mr. Fitzpatrick’s assessment was that it was necessary to find a means of persuading the Tories in the constituency to vote for the Respondent. “If we can convince them that they are being used by the Moslems it may save him and the more we can damage Elwyn the easier it will be to stop the Tories from voting for him”. The Respondent and his election team were aware that some Muslims wished to cause the Respondent to lose his seat and, to that end, were persuading Muslims to vote for Petitioner. They in turn wished to persuade the “white folk” to vote for the Petitioner. To do so they had to get them “angry”. The chosen method or strategy was to suggest that there were Muslim extremists who advocated violence, in particular to the Respondent, and that the Petitioner was attempting to seek the support of such Muslims. This was, we consider, one of the methods by which it was hoped to “damage” the Petitioner.” (para 199)

• Secondly, Harriet Harman’s position is strategically sound. Irrespective of whether an appeal overturns the original judgement on a technicality, she is right to say that the public won’t accept the party backing politicians who appear to have lied to get elected. Moreover, the nuances of the grounds of Woolas’ appeal are likely to be lost on most of the public – the damage has already been done.
• Thirdly, a YouGov poll today suggests that the overwhelming majority of the public agree with the courts’ decision, and the breakdowns suggest the same is true of Labour respondents.
• Fourthly, it sends a very damaging message to the electorate when they start raising money to protect one of their own from the consequences of behaviour which is clearly indefensible. Surely politicians learnt a few PR lessons from the expenses affair?
• Finally, there is some debate over whether or not a judicial review is (a) permissible and (b) would have the effect of reinstating Woolas as an MP even if successful.

Woolas-gate is a sorry affair. Irrespective of their personal loyalties, Labour MPs should recognise the damage that has already been done, and that is unlikely to be healed by a prolonged legal action or PLP-infighting.

Turning on Harriet Harman won’t change these perceptions. Rather, it will confirm in the mind of members of the public the self-serving and removed nature of the ruling class. In some ways, the PLP are showing a high degree of political naivety in defending Woolas in this way.

Woolas’ election literature has already done enough damage. Labour MPs should avoid making it worse.

Alex Baker is New Media Officer of the Young Fabians.

Democracy in action

Young Fabian Executive member James Green reflects on his experiences learning about community organising on Citizens UK’s national five day training.

“The habit of action must be just that – a habit. It cannot be a precious, isolated, rare, and over-freighted moment that we approach gingerly… No, it must be, at its core, what meaningful action is: the collective equivalent of relating. Through action, we relate to the other powers in the public world. We collectively tell or act out our story – who we are and what we want and why we deserve recognition and respect – and we listen to the stories of others. We leave our seats in the rear of the theatre and step onto the wider stage.”

The first time I heard that quote was on a drizzly day in Chigwell. Karen, a vicar from Nottingham, had been given the unenviable task of stepping into the shoes of Johnny Ray Youngblood, a charismatic Brooklyn pastor who had become a driving force behind community organising in the United States. Over the course of twenty years Youngblood had turned a small dwindling church into a dynamic congregation of thousands and had transformed New York in the process. As Karen spoke it struck me that Youngblood must have experienced that same moment of discovery that I was feeling then – the realisation that organising offered the power to affect real change in local communities and transform society from the bottom up. As Karen finished speaking you could have heard a pin drop. It was four days into the training and something profound was happening to us all.

In these days of X-Factor and instant celebrity it has almost become cliché to talk about life changing experiences. But I couldn’t think of a more apt description of those five days in Chigwell. I had become interested in community organising during my time on Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and I had kept abreast of London Citizens’ many successes following my return to the UK. The training offered me the opportunity to learn more about organising and how I could apply its lessons to my work within the Labour movement and the Jewish community. But most of all I met incredible people who taught me that the most inspiring thing about organising is the communities that get involved in it and their near boundless potential to change society for the better.

There were thirty five of us on the training and in many ways it could not have been a more diverse group. We had people of all ages, backgrounds and faiths from atheist political activists to charismatic Christian pastors. There were Muslims, Jews and Christians. Some had been involved in community organising for years, while others were taking their first tentative steps into that world. Yet despite, and perhaps because of that diversity, we built strong relationships with each other from the outset. In a room full of leaders, everyone was given space and everyone got on. In any other part of life, that in itself would have been enough of an achievement.

But it wouldn’t have been a problem had that not been the case. In the world of community organising I quickly learnt that tension is actively encouraged. In fact it is often a vital part of the influencing process. I’ll never forget the story we were told of Abdul Durrant. As a cleaner at HSBC, he struggled to survive on the national minimum wage for years. Change was needed, and cleaners, working with London Citizens, took action to make that change happen. They bought shares in the company and at the bank’s AGM Abdul interrupted the meeting and asked HSBC’s chairman, Sir John Bond, whether, in view of the bank’s profits, he was prepared to pay him and his colleagues a ‘living wage’. You must have been able to cut the tension with a knife. Shortly after, HSBC became a living wage employer and many more followed. Abdul’s was one of countless stories we heard about the power of community organising to change lives.

And that is what community organising is all about; power. The power to shape your own life, transform your community and hold those in authority to account. At its heart lies the insight that by building a broad alliance of institutions, civil society to can wrestle power back from the market and state and affect real change on the ground. That’s no mean feat. In an increasingly atomised society in which the market now reaches into all aspects of our lives, civil society has become increasingly weak. Community organising aims to redress that balance and put civic institutions firmly back in the driving seat. That requires more than good intentions and inspiring speeches. It requires organised money and, crucially, organised communities.

Over the five days we found out how we could apply these lessons to our own communities. We learnt about the gritty realities of politics and the tried and tested techniques used by organisers to move from the ‘world as it is’ to the ‘world as it should be’. We heard about the vital importance of the one to one and understanding self-interest, how to analyse institutional power and strengthen our own churches, synagogues and mosques and why a ‘habit of action’ is crucial to driving through real change. We were told countless stories from the front line, listened to personal experiences of community life and shared our own hopes and fears about the future. Every session offered a new insight and could have lasted a day rather than a few hours. I always found myself wanting more.

Yet however important the theory may have been, it paled in comparison to seeing organising in practice. On the third day we were invited to an accountability assembly, my first time at a London Citizens action. Coordinated by the East London Citizens Organisation (TELCO), the candidates for Tower Hamlets’ first elected mayor were pressed by TELCO members on a number of issues from affordable housing and safer streets to fair pay and opportunities for young people. It was a slick operation to say the least and I was impressed most of all by the dignity and respect with which the meeting was conducted. It was a far cry from the yah-boo politics that so often characterizes British political life. And unlike hustings, the meeting was not about pitting politician against politician. It was about the issues themselves and the opportunity for communities to hold their representatives to account.

The most moving moment for me was when a local cleaner addressed the meeting and described the day-to-day challenges of supporting a family on the minimum wage. We had learnt about the importance of testimony during the training, but nothing could have prepared me for how powerful it would be in practice. I quickly realised that this was about far more than influencing the decision making process. Rather, it was about ordinary people standing tall and demanding fairness in their communities. The contrast between that speech and the bitter infighting and recriminations that had come to define the mayoral race couldn’t have been starker. I left with a strong sense that this was politics as it should be. Perhaps that is what community organising is at its core – power in the hands of the people and democracy in action.

Organising for success

Post-conference and with a new leader, Labour has a chance to start building. But it must seize the opportunity, bring together what has already been achieved and learn from choices made by others.

Back in 2008 when the Young Fabians came back from Ohio, having played our part in getting Barack Obama elected as President of the United States of America, our hopes were high that the same scale of political engagement we had seen in the US could be generated in the UK. Through outlets like the Young Fabians events, Progress-organised CLP meetings and on blogs like Labourlist, we actively sought to spread the word about what we had seen and what could be achieved.

My speech to conference

Reflecting on my experience as Cheltenham’s Parliamentary Candidate at the last General Election I wrote this speech to be delivered on the conference floor.

James Green. I was Labour’s Parliamentary Candidate in Cheltenham at the last election.

There are thousands of people in Cheltenham right now who feel let down.

The Liberal Democrats won the seat on the back Labour supporters who voted tactically to keep the Tories out. Throughout the campaign they pitched themselves as the only real left wing opposition to the Conservatives in the town.

Conference, how times have changed.

The Liberals are now the face of coalition cuts that will see departmental budgets reduced by 25%, of a VAT rise that will hit the poorest hardest, and, most fundamentally of all, of a Tory ideological drive to shrink the state.

We have become the only opposition in Cheltenham and across the country. The only home for those who oppose the Tory-Lib Dem coalition.

In opposing of course we must expose the Liberals. And that could pay dividends.

At the General Election I held my deposit by 0.1% of the vote but I’m confident that if there was a by-election today Labour would win Cheltenham by a landslide.

But on a serious note, exposing the Liberals will never be enough in itself. It’s vital that we avoid falling into the trap of attacking the Lib Dems while allowing Cameron to rise above the fray.

Conference, we must focus our fire on the driving force of this coalition, the Tories, and on exposing the impact of their regressive and ideologically driven cuts.

But at the same time our history tells us that we can’t rely on the unpopularity of the government alone to win. The public demand and deserve an alternative progressive vision for the country.

This must be credible.

Our approach to tackling the deficit will be seen by the public as the test of our credibility. Of course we should oppose cuts where they are wrong but we must face up to the structural issues within the UK economy which come not only from the bank bailout but also from an ageing population.

It must be ideological.

Conference, we know that that Tories want to shrink the state but you can’t fight ideology with policy alone. We must offer the public a powerful set of ideas rooted in the political and economic realities of today.

And finally it must be authentic.

Nye Bevan put it best when he said, “the first duty of the progressive representative is to reflect the views of those he represents authentically. Because then people know that you are seeking to represent them because they are your inspiration.”

Conference, the quality of life, the public services, the support offered to those who inspired us all to get involved in politics are under threat.

I’m relishing the fightback.

James Green, Anticipations Editor and former Parliamentary Candidate for Cheltenham