The Future of Education

Amidst the hubbub of leadership questions, short-term poll obsession and questions over the future of the Union, members of the shadow cabinet have been very busy of late laying out exactly the kind of concrete policy views that some have said were previously missing from Labour.

One of the most interesting of these was provided in Stephen Twigg’s speech on reforming the education system. In it, he called for a longer school day, more teacher mentoring, and a focus on “soft skills” to better prepare students for life after school. The announcement coincided nicely with a review of the curriculum currently under way and due to be concluded later this year.

There is a broad consensus on what the outcome of education should be; namely, well- informed, well-rounded young people who have the capacity to advance themselves in whatever direction they choose. Sadly, in too many areas the wealth of a child’s parents still determines their success in life. There are serious debates taking place about the structure of schools and the deliberate attempts to carve them away from local authorities, but in this piece I want to focus on how education is delivered rather than the legal wrapper under which the school functions.

There are two examples of policies which can be implemented and cost very little that can help further both education and social progress. These are introducing debating at the heart of the curriculum and using peer-mentoring as a way to help the continuous professional development of teachers.

Firstly, we should put debating at the heart of our curriculum as a way of encouraging children to develop vital critical thinking and communications skills. People on the left often frown upon the idea of school as a place to teach workplace skills, but it is in work that we spend most of our lives, and as the one million unemployed young people in the country would surely attest, little is more dispiriting and eroding of an individual’s self-worth than the recurring rejection of unemployment.

Rhetoric and debating are typically seen as the purview of elitist independent schools, and as a skill with little relevance to daily reality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Debate is part of the curriculum in many ways anyway, from analysis of history through dissection of English and the understanding of competing scientific theories. The contestation of ideas is a vital part of what it means to get an education.

Teachers often worry about anarchy in the classroom if they allow students to debate, but many programmes both here and in the US have shown that students, when given ownership of a position and the right to advocate for it, are more likely to take their education seriously. Indeed, a major review of education conducted by the Irish Economic and Social Research Institute showed that across a multitude of regions and cultures, interactive classroom learning is the most effective way of teaching students.

With some schools failing to teach students basic reading and writing skills, focussing on oral presentation is an alternative way to engage reluctant students. There is nothing like the fear of making a fool of themselves in front of their peers to make students work hard. Debating also has the added advantage of teaching exactly the kind of “soft skills” that Stephen Twigg talked about. Recent talk of getting Britain manufacturing again is heartening, but Britain’s comparative advantage lies in services, and the more children are able to think and provide in these areas the better their chances in later life will be.

Mentoring for teachers is another area where there have been promising results of late. Teachers do receive training, but it is rarely based on observation of their classroom performance. In a thought provoking New Yorker article, Atul Gawande discusses the parallels between teaching to surgery and how, even as a top surgeon, he sees many opportunities to improve. Teachers should not view mentoring as an imposition, but rather as an opportunity to improve their performance. Experienced teachers should be encouraged to offer their services as mentors, in order to perpetuate best practice among new recruits.

These are just two ways in which education in Britain could be improved. There are many others out there, and politicians should start listening to them. Together, they point the way towards a more open, student-centred and successful school system.

Stephen Boyle is a Young Fabians Member

The Fabian New Year Conference 2012: An Economic Alternative?

On Saturday 14th January, the Institute of Education in central London played host to the 2012 Fabian Society New Year Conference.

Hundreds of Fabians attended the all-day event, which featured some of the leading lights of the British Left and a selection of some of Labour’s most prominent frontbenchers.

This year’s theme was ‘The Economic Alternative’. Unsurprisingly, I left the conference with a sense that the Left is not offering just one alternative to the Coalition’s programme of unchecked austerity, but several, each occupying a different space on the political spectrum.

The alternative offered by Labour was set out by Ed Balls in his keynote speech. To the acclaim of some, and the horror of others, he made it clear that Labour would not reverse the cuts imposed on the country by the Tory-led government. However, in contrast to the Coalition, he did promise that the party’s focus would be fixed firmly on job creation rather than blind deficit reduction.

The overall impression received from those representing the Labour party on Saturday – which included Rachel Reeves and Chuka Ummanu – was that they were firmly sticking to their leader’s view. As Ed Miliband explained earlier last week, regardless of the Coalition’s performance over the coming three years, the next government will still inherit a deficit and in consequence have few spending options available to them. A future Labour government, therefore, would be a government of austerity too.

The need for Labour to allay suspicions that the party is, in Ed Balls’ words, “out of tune with the public mood” on the deficit is obvious from the view of narrow, immediate political interest. But as Sunny Hundal explains, by shifting the debate onto Tory territory, Labour instantly puts itself at a disadvantage. Labour will never look comfortable using the language of ‘fiscal conservatism’, or be able to dislodge the country’s preference for Conservative stewardship of the economy by promising “tough decisions on tax and spending”.

Historically, Labour has a poor record on economic management. From the historic debts of 1945 to the strikes and public sector strife of the 1970s, Labour has either inherited or created dire economic circumstances. Even New Labour, which was unique among Labour governments in presiding over eleven years of GDP growth, failed the economic test in the end when the financial storm broke. The Conservatives will always be able to claim that they are the party to be trusted with the economy when times turn hard. A Labour party promising to ‘out-macho’ the Tories will always struggle to make headway.

Other Left thinkers offered alternative visions of a future progressive approach to the economy. Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party, argued against our current economic model and stated her support for the introduction of alternate measures of national prosperity based on citizens’ perception of their own well-being and consideration for the environment. She also impressed on the audience the need to redistribute the existing wealth in society through a programme of progressive taxation and capital investment in Green infrastructure projects. The applause she received from the conference rivalled anything Ed Balls mustered, suggesting that the Left is not ready to pull on the hair-shirt of austerity just yet.

What I discovered throughout the conference is that Fabians responded better to policies and positions that promoted positive messages. Chuka Ummuna MP struck a chord by arguing that the British economy needs to be geared towards ‘pre-distribution’, and shaped in such a way that the proceeds work to lessen inequality rather than exacerbate it. The conference warmly acclaimed Will Straw’s pitch on the need for a National Investment Bank to fund SMEs, embracing the positive message that even a little investment could go a long way to transforming the fortunes of those trying to make their way through the economic turmoil.

Effective intervention, equality and redistribution were the buzzwords of the day, and if any consensus emerged from the conference it was that the economic alternative would have to reflect these three values. Let us hope that Labour’s more positive messages on jobs, ‘pre-distribution’ and ‘a responsible capitalism’ can shift the debate onto the Left’s territory, and force David Cameron to fight on our ground and on our terms.

If you were at the 2012 Fabians Conference and want to share your thoughts on the blog, please contact the team at: blog@youngfabians.org.uk

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Labour Lifts-Off Into 2012

Ed Miliband is seeking to relaunch his leadership and confound his critics by unveiling a clear vision for the Labour party of 2012.

On Monday, he began a media blitz that outlined what a future Labour government would look like. His speech at the OXO Tower guaranteed that Labour would continue to promote fairness and social justice “even in tough times”, but made it abundantly clear that it would be “a different party from the one we were in the past.” At a stroke, Ed appeared to banish the ghosts of New Labour while allaying the fears of those critics who believe he wants to take party policy back to the days of tax-and-spend.

It was a forceful speech made by a leader with fire in his belly. Polling at the end of 2011 revealed that while the Prime Minister enjoys a +5 point personal rating on his job performance, Ed is burdened with a -17 rating, putting him just ahead of Nick Clegg on -19. Labour’s lacklustre support among the electorate has led some erstwhile friends of the leader to openly criticise his handling of the party. Ed needed to begin the New Year with a gutsy show of character that made clear where he stood on the policy spectrum- especially in regards to the economy.

However, while the delivery was impressive, the content revealed that there is still some way to go before Ed and the party can make a coherent case on where they stand. The references to “tough times”, and admittance that “whoever is the next Prime Minister will not have money to spend” suggest that Ed is adopting the doctrine of fiscal conservatism that underpins the Coalition’s support and was recently advocated by the authors of ‘In the Black Labour’. While Ed attempts a positive spin on this by arguing that he will co-opt the private sector in the mission to improve the living standards of the vulnerable, the underlying principle still resembles that which motivated New Labour. The rhetoric also contradicts messages coming from elsewhere in the Labour Party, especially from the Shadow Chancellor, who in previous months has argued that short-term stimulus is more important than immediate fiscal contraction.

Contracting-out the task of providing fairness and social justice to the private sector isn’t exactly what some on the left want to see Labour support. What is more distressing, however, is the lack of inventive policy positions or promising reforms that would get the electorate excited about a future Labour government.

This is where think-tanks like the Fabian Society step in. In the recent Fabian Review¸ society chair Andrew Harrop argued that Labour should move away from ‘short-term Keynesianism’ and Osbornomics alike by committing to spending, rather than prohibiting it, but only spending on investment and unemployment relief.  He also suggested that Labour could steal a march on the Coalition and reboot the economy with a stimulus programme based on short-term tax cuts. The promise of a fiscal stimulus that appeals to the electorate and outflanks the Right could put Ed’s name back in lights- provided he retains a commitment to strong infrastructure spending and the welfare state.

That last proviso is an important one. As Ed seeks to convey a clear message on what the Labour Party stands for and what policies it would implement, he has to be careful not to abandon the values and language of democratic socialism. He was right to state that “my Labour Party is not going to bow to the outdated idea that says that government cannot help”, and as the Left rallies for a new campaign against the misguided policies of the Coalition,  many look forward to hearing more about what a Miliband government would do to bolster the state’s ability to create a more progressive society.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

‘In the Black Labour’: A roadmap to defeat?

Louie Woodall responds to Stephen Boyle’s argument for a new economic strategy based on ‘fiscal conservatism’.

The question absorbing Labour leaders, activists, and think-tanks alike is how the party can earn back its economic credibility. Recently, a quartet of Labour thinkers published ‘In the Black Labour’ , which offers one answer to this question. However, the paper does little to advance a distinctive economic strategy that traditional voters and activists can relate to, and does even less to bolster Labour’s chances at the next election.

The fundamental problem with ‘In the Black Labour’ is that it does not provide the alternative narrative that an opposition is supposed to offer the electorate. The authors are essentially trying to sell the electorate the same product pedalled by the Coalition: austerity, a small state, and the fictitious ‘Big Society’.

By placing ‘fiscal conservatism’ at the heart of its strategy, ‘In the Black Labour’ cedes the moral argument on the economy to the Conservatives and attempts to move the party onto the Coalition’s turf. It is easy to see why this would be an attractive course to take in the current political climate. November polling revealed that some 30% of respondents still blame the debts racked up by the previous Labour government for the continued economic slump

However, it also revealed that 46% believe Osborne needs to slow the pace of austerity, and that 35% favour a programme of public works to create jobs. Labour needs to remember that by 2015, the Coalition will no longer be able to capitalise on the excuse that their failures originated in the actions of the previous government. Osborne would have had a full term to place the country on the road to economic recovery, something which many indicators suggest he is far from achieving. Telling the electorate that it favours the government’s strategy but disagrees on the tools to achieve it will make Labour look uninspired and shallow to the victims of the Coalition’s policies.

By promising rigid controls over future budgets, the authors miss the opportunity to excite the electorate with a positive vision of economic growth. It is difficult to convince people that by cutting the deficit, more jobs and higher wages will follow. Labour should instead promote a programme of public works, with a focus on housing and infrastructure, and continue to sponsor the ‘green industrial revolution’ promised in the last manifesto. The Coalition is making tentative steps in these areas, and Labour should steal a march on them by promising a much more extensive campaign. ‘Effective Keynesianism’ can be sold to the electorate without recourse to fiscal conservatism.

Labour should not shackle itself to the same ideology dictating the actions of the Conservatives by promoting macho fiscal discipline over the more desirable aim of a resurgent economy. It should not reject deficit spending outright just to win back the votes of the City. The very idea that any government could commit to producing a budget surplus within a fixed timescale- as suggested by the authors of this pamphlet- is ludicrous considering the volatility of national and international economies. Setting targets that cannot be realistically met is an own goal in politics- just look at Osborne’s current woes.

Labour is suffering a crisis of identity, and every centre-left thinker is casting around for a narrative it can adopt that fits with the party’s heritage, while accommodating the current economic reality we face. ‘In the Black Labour’ seeks to gain the party short-term popularity by copying the Coalition’s approach to the public finances and planting the red flag squarely in centre ground. The authors should remember that the centre ground is always in motion, and may be some way more to left by 2015 than it is now if Tory policies fail to achieve their objectives.

Louie Woodall is a member of the Young Fabians and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

‘In the Black Labour’: A roadmap to victory?

Stephen Boyle assesses the relevance of ‘In The Black Labour’.

With the coalition showing signs of fraying and Vince Cable supposedly so furious at David Cameron’s “veto” that he considered resigning, the odds of the coalition lasting a full term has dropped considerably since Friday.

While Europe is currently dominating the agenda, any election in the near future will inevitably pivot towards the ailing domestic economy. Worryingly,  it is on economic ground that Labour most lack credibility with the electorate. Recent polling data from Lord Ashcroft and YouGov shows that despite people’s lack of confidence in the current government, they trust Labour even less to deal with the current economic climate.

Last week saw the publication of In the black Labour which aims to broach this gap. The authors’ proposed remedy is to marry fiscal conservativism with equality of opportunity.

I believe In the Black Labour points the right way for the party. Labour desperately needs a credible alternative to the coalition’s cuts. The five point plan is all well and good, but its emphasis on the “nice” side of dealing with slow or no growth, in terms of taxing bankers, investing in youth education and infrastructure must be coupled with a more open acceptance of the necessity for cuts. At the moment this message is failing to chime with an electorate that still views Labour as culpable for the current mess. In order to re-establish credibility we need to accept that we made mistakes in the past, and unambiguously commit ourselves to acting in a fiscally responsible way in the future.

As to the first point, we need to be more open to the fact that we made mistakes during our time in power. Look to the abolition of the 10p tax rate as one example. In his recent book, Alistair Darling makes clear the political and economic costs this disastrous policy caused. Being candid that we made mistakes in the past, owning them, and speaking about how we have learned lessons would go a long way to re-establish credibility. This should not be couched in the passive voice of “mistakes were made” as if they were agentless, floating in the ether, but rather owned by us. We made mistakes. We have learned from them.

After that message has had time to sink in, we can demonstrate our commitment to acting responsibly. That will mean setting clear and unambiguous targets for the levels of national debt and public expenditure. This means that we will have to look for new ways of achieving social justice with less money, a challenge to which the Fabian’s new year conference admirably rises.

By accepting the severity of the current situation we can build a message that draws on the values Labour epitomises and that are most appealing to voters. The current cuts disproportionately target the lowest paid workers and women. Labour’s message should be that we accept the need for cuts; we know that it is wrong to leave a legacy of debt for the next generation, but we will act in such a way as to spread the burden more fairly across society.

Those viewing the policy debate since Labour lost power must have felt like they were looking through a kaleidoscope as an array of colour-coded publications cascaded by. Blue, Purple and Red have all raised their standards in the ongoing battle to define the next generation of Labour policies. While many of the colours will no doubt fade over time I believe In the Black Labour should be at the heart of what the next Labour administration does.

It is time now to start planning for the reality that austerity will outlive the current parliament and last into the next. A Labour party that does not accept that reality and put it at the fore of their message risks being seen as the greater of two evils in comparison to a resolute and ideologically driven Tory administration.

Stephen Boyle is a member of the Young Fabians.

The Future of Fair Pay

Recently, the Young Fabians unveiled ‘Recovering the Economic Initiative’, a guide for Labour on how to restore its economic credibility. The recommendations are broad in scope, yet all focus on placing growth, fairness and responsibility at the heart of future policy.

One of the flagship policy successes of the 1997 Labour government was one that guaranteed fairness for all workers. The National Minimum Wage Act enshrined in law the right of workers to be paid a fair wage for their labour. The opening sections of the Bill state in clear terms that a worker is entitled to this wage – it is not a perk, a bonus, or an earned privilege, but an entitlement: a basic right.

However, for over a decade Conservatives have been attacking this right, and by fair means or foul have attempted to undermine it. When Tories- including David Cameron- campaigned against the minimum wage in 1997, hourly wages of £1.20 were common and legal. Even today, some Conservatives still seek to undermine the very idea of a national minimum wage- by taking the ‘national’ out of it altogether. Chris Chope tried his luck in March, forwarding a Private Member’s Bill that threatened to cut the rate in certain regions of the country. Besides fundamentally missing the point of a ‘national’ minimum wage, the Bill promised to randomly condemn thousands of people to poverty wages for living in the wrong place.

This is not the time to cut the minimum wage. It’s the time to take it a step further. The current rate may protect employees from exploitation, and free them from poverty jobs. But it does not do enough for workers in these extraordinary times.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported in July that a single person needs to earn £15,000 before tax to afford an acceptable standard of living. However, a worker on the current minimum wage, working 40-hour weeks for 52 weeks, can only earn just over £12,600. This rate of pay doesn’t even apply to workers under 21 years of age. Thousands of young adults are placed on a lower rate, meaning that the minimum wage effectively discriminates against them. Is the work performed by a 21-year-old really worth £1.10 more per hour than that performed by a 20-year-old?

Labour shouldn’t see the National Minimum Wage as the end of the road- but the beginning of the journey towards true wage fairness. Ed Miliband made a start on this with his Living Wage Campaign during the Labour leadership race, but this has been quietly dropped from Labour’s current agenda.

Worringly, Labour in the recent past has been flirting with the idea of a minimum wage that varies across the country. Gordon Brown thought about introducing a variable scheme in 2007, and it’s certainly gaining popularity on the left today, where the need to look economically credible seems to be overriding all other concerns. The flawed logic of some is that a minimum wage prices people out of employment- but what good is employment if you can’t live off your income?

Yes, there are regional variations in inflation. Yes, it’s more expensive to live in some parts of Britain than it is in others. Yes, small businesses may struggle with wage costs. But these are all problems that can be solved without undermining the idea of a fair wage. Labour should be seeking to attack the Conservatives from a different angle, by reviving the Living Wage Campaign and standardising the rate across all ages to end the downright immoral age discrimination the current scheme enforces. Tories, economists, and businesses all thought the minimum wage would lead to mass unemployment and national bankruptcy. They think the same would happen today with a Living Wage. They were wrong then, and they’d be wrong today.

You can download ‘Recovering the Economic Initiative’ here.

Louie Woodall is a Young Fabian Member and Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Blue Labour after Conference

In this member post, Young Fabian member Patrick Doyle expands on the continuing phenomenom of Blue Labour.

One theme I have been drawn to during Conference season has been the emergence of a rigorous intellectual debate taking place in the Labour party. It is being conducted between the various shades of party opinion you have almost certainly heard of by now: ‘Blue’, ‘Purple’ and ‘Red’ Labour.

In particular I want to focus on Blue Labour. A cursory search on Google brings up its Wikipedia entry which begins, “Blue Labour was a recent, and momentarily influential political tendency in the British Labour Party that was ‘effectively disbanded’ in July 2011 following remarks about immigration by Maurice Glasman.”

Following this week’s Conference that analysis would appear to be wide of the mark. Despite its critics and its attendant controversy, Blue Labour is still stirring up debate within the Labour party (not least in relation to its controversial name) and I think it will remain an intellectual fixture within the party for some time. The publication of Rowenna Davis’ new book analysing the genesis and potential implications of the project suggests that Blue Labour has much to say regarding the future direction of the Labour party.

At a fringe event which focused on Blue Labour, a panel of experts sought to define exactly what it represents. However, as engaging and thoughtful as the meeting turned out to be, a fully nailed-down definition of what Blue Labour stands for remained elusive.

Nonetheless I was struck by several points.

Since the general election, our party has been gripped in the midst of an existential crisis in which it has been asked ‘What is Labour actually for?’ especially after the money runs out. From what I can tell, far from representing a crisis for the party, this question has created a debate in which the intellectual underpinnings of the whole labour movement are rigorously assessed. Blue Labour deserves a great deal of credit for kick-starting this process regardless of one’s personal views on it. It has carved out a space for discussion where the party can analyse and (re-)discover its intellectual origins, whilst simultaneously placing these ideas and concepts amidst the context of our current situation. This can only be a good thing.

The accusation that Blue Labour holds a nostalgic worldview can also be challenged. A focus upon the community need not imply a backward-looking way of doing politics. It can instead address the point that many people have lost out as a result of the unequal impact of globalisation which served to undermine and loosen communal relationships. Reconnecting with those who feel alienated and cut adrift could not only benefit the Labour Party, but also help breathe fresh vitality into the democratic process in this country. Promoting the local is not the same as retreating from the global. Rather, it allows the Labour Party to establish that it is on the side of those who are most vulnerable and exposed within our society.

One concern I was left with centred on the economic argument. For me this remains Blue Labour’s biggest problem. During his speech to Conference Ed Miliband talked of ‘predators’ and ‘producers’ in business. The challenge now will be to argue the practical case for how one is differentiated from the other and then offer measures that could be applied effectively. Whilst I believe this shift in the treatment of business addresses some of the anxieties expressed by Blue Labour, the movement has yet to produce any practical economic solutions.

Ultimately, in its current state Blue Labour does not amount to an alternative program for government. Rather it engages by providing ideas and questioning old party certainties, contributing to the current process of reengaging with the electorate. The exchange and discussion of ideas remains an organic process with no overnight solutions to Labour’s current situation.

Ed Miliband’s speech to Conference contained a significant amount of Blue Labour thinking. For that reason alone it deserves to be considered as something more than “momentarily influential”.

It appears to be very much alive and therefore deserving of all our attention and scrutiny.

Patrick Doyle is a member of the Young Fabians.

The Promise of Britain? Gauging support for Labour’s Education policy

If the issue is worth talking about, then people will come. At least this proved to be the case for the Young Fabians’ breakfast fringe meeting during Labour Party Conference. The 8am start a couple of days into conference didn’t prevent young people attending in force to discuss the multitude of issues faced by the squeezed youth.

Taking the title of the Young Fabian Policy Commission ‘Securing the future of the next generation’, and looking across a range of short and long term policy areas, the fringe sought to address how Ed Miliband’s Promise of Britain could be realised.

I chaired a panel featuring Joani Reid, Young Fabian member and chair of the aforementioned policy commission, Andy Slaughter, MP for Hammersmith and Shadow Justice Minister, John Woodcock, MP for Barrow & Furness and Shadow Transport Minister, Rosie Cooper from Catch 22, and Fatima Hassan, from our partners ICAEW.

Amongst the themes that emerged from panel and audience discussion were: the need to replace what is looking like a process of managing decline with a positive agenda characterised by hope; an optimism in young people and for young people; the desire to reduce the gaps between young people and the world of work, particularly be exploiting opportunities for collaboration; utilising models for involving young people in strategic decision-making; acknowledging the importance of local government where many services are accessed; and that more of the same is simply not going to cut it – Labour needs to start early in formulating new policy that it can implement as a government after the general election.

And there was also plenty of opposition to the new Labour position on university fees, with puzzled voices unsure why the leadership had nailed its colours to the mast of £6,000 fees, a sum not inconsiderable to most young people and their families.  I don’t have the answer to that one, it seemed somewhat arbitrary to me – though the problem initiated years ago when Labour in government abandoned the principle of education free to the user. It was inevitable then that the argument just becomes about numbers. A shame.

What the policy has in its favour is its simplicity. And answers that are easy to understand and easy for politicians to explain have the potential to serve the party well. But they are not always right, and not always enough. The Young Fabian fringe demonstrated that the problems themselves that young people face are many and complex – but there is a lot of appetite to resolve them.

I look forward to seeing the final outcomes from Joani’s Young Fabian policy commissions – watch this space over the next few weeks.

Adrian Prandle is Chair of the Young Fabians

Labour Conference – Young Labour makes its mark

In this guest post, Susan Nash and Callum Munro reflect on the activity by Young Labour activists at last week’s Labour Party Conference.

Everywhere you turned at Labour Party Conference last week there were references to the promise of the next generation; the importance of protecting the futures of young people who are being priced out of education and left isolated and unemployed by this Conservative-led coalition.

But what was refreshing at Conference were the faces leading these debates.

It was young members themselves – affected by the betrayals of the Lib Dems and Tories – who took to the stage.

For the first time ever, Young Labour held a Youth Conference at Annual Conference. Packed with fringes, an exciting array of speakers and a lively reception, it was a huge success. Reduced conference passes helped boost the numbers of young people flocking to Liverpool’s ACC, as well as the jammed packed agenda.

The Youth Conference began with an explanation of the radical and fundamental reforms that were passed as part of Refounding Labour, which amongst other things grant Young Labour affiliate rights. But discussions didn’t just focus on the past but centred on the tasks ahead; looking at the policy review where delegates got an opportunity to showcase their ideas to Liam Byrne MP.

The busiest session of day was the lunchtime fringe which included Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. The room was so packed some were turned away, and the debate didn’t disappoint with rousing speeches and questions on how to tackle youth unemployment, looking at both the Coalition’s failure to act, and what we could do from opposition.

As a party we have strong international links. This too is true of our youth wing. Young Labour was honoured to have fraternal greetings at our first youth conference from Eskil Pedersen, the President of AUF; the Norwegian Worker’s Youth League, which was so tragically attacked on the 22nd July on Utoya island. Eskil spoke with eloquence and deep heartened thanks and gratitude to all those across the world who had shown solidarity in action, and supported him and his members through those challenging times.

Young Labour is the largest youth wing of any UK political party, with over 20,000 members aged 26 or under, but we recognise this conference is just the start of the continuing important work of building and strengthening our movement.

At conference we discussed the challenges of engaging young people on politics and we know there is a lot more work needed to train our activists, to develop young labour groups across the country, and to build effective campaigns which reach more young people beyond our party members.

This week was just the start but an important and significant one. These developments would not have been possible without the leadership of Ed Miliband and the support of both the outgoing and incoming General Secretaries: Ray Collins and Iain McNicol. The success of this week also pays testament to the dedication of our volunteers and the support of the newly appointed National Youth Officer.

As we look to build on from this success we hope Young Fabian members will continue to play a central role in transforming Young Labour into a even greater, more powerful and effective organisation. An organisation at the heart of our party. A party which has and will continue to offer real hope and prosperity for young people.

Susan Nash is national Chair of Young Labour and a former Young Fabian executive committee member.
Callum Munro is the Youth Representative on Labour’s National Executive Committee.

Conference – a view from outside Liverpool

The 2011 Party Conference season is giving me déjà vu.

Watching Labour from outside Liverpool, through the prism of media, blog and twitter coverage – to be fair – there was a lot to be happy about.

Keynote speeches received a lot of airtime and the key message punched through, particularly Balls on fiscal discipline (which coincided nicely with the Fabian publication “The Credibility Deficit”), Cooper on police bravery and reform, and Ed Miliband on ‘I’m my own man’.

The fight against the (perception at least) of a lurch to the left is going well. Ed M is speaking more passionately and more confidently. I believe he’s having speech training. That was a good idea, which is paying off. Ken also made some noise, that punched through to national media, on transport fares. And he dovetailed nicely with a simultaneous SMS campaign.

Ed’s main message, around ethics in markets and not-business as usual, needs a bit more work to stick in the minds of the man on the Clapham omnibus. But I think it could resonate well. I’d caution though, that just “being against business as usual” only works when you explain quite a bit of context.

On the down side, there were a lot of blogs and tweets pointing to the party being in lemming mode. There is a body of opinion that is frustrated by a sense that we know we have an unelectable leader and we are not landing the blows against the coalition, but that we are happy to stick our heads in the sand and keep congratulating ourselves. From outside of Liverpool, I picked up quite a bit of this sentiment.

But what do I mean by déjà vu?

It was the summer and autumn of 2008 when the credit crunch turbulence escalated into a full-blown financial and economic crisis. It came to a head around the time of the Party Conference season. In 2011, the Labour leadership speeches were ok. There were no big fails. But the Labour conference seemed slightly blind to the fact that the global economy is standing on a knife edge, in a similar position to where we were in the Autumn of 2008. Failure to reach a solution to the eurocrisis will affect all our lives in a very bad way for a long time to come. It will be a source of economic malaise and deprivation and, who knows, potentially a source of conflict.

In 2008, Cameron – in opposition – grasped the severity of the 2008 financial crisis and ripped up all the main speeches (and conference agenda) and refocused on what was happening in the economy. That showed a bit of vision.

Unfortunately, Labour didn’t do the same in 2011. Perhaps our heads are a little too far in the sand.

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians.