Fighting to win

Last Thursday evening saw a passionate, proud, optimistic and determined debate at the Young Fabian seminar ‘Why Labour can win – and why the country need a centre-left government’. The Independent’s chief political commentator, Steve Richards,  chaired a panel of four Labour PPCs – Stella Creasy, Rachel Reeves, Stephen Twigg, and Chris Ostrowski – and some excellent contributions from Young Fabians in the audience.

Stephen Twigg summed up the context well in pointing out that it is “a bit depressing when you’re celebrating being back at 30%” (in the recent Populus poll) – but the panel set out the reasons to be cheerful and what is needed to take Labour to victory and the next stage of delivering better lives for everyone in the country. We heard about what was good – the visibility and effectiveness of Police Community Support Officers in Leeds West and how there, the commitment to investment in apprenticeships was resonating. And we heard what was worth fighting for: work-life balance, diplomas, social care, the cancer pledge amongst much more. Stella Creasy told us why she believed social mobility would come only with a Labour government, “I’m hungry, I’m impatient. I don’t want to tell kids, hang around; things’ll probably get better at some point and you’ll be able to go to uni. I want to get stuck in.”

The expenses issue framed much of the debate, and Stephen Twigg talked separately and connectedly about the need for honesty – in a balanced assessment of the last twelve years, and in an honest contrast with the Tories. (You can read here what I said earlier in the year about our politics being honest, moral and consistent.) Stella Creasy suggested that London had got off lightly with Boris Johnson in comparison to David Cameron and his ‘inert political philosophy’ whilst the audience debated whether Labour should be talking in terms of itself or in terms of the Conservative opposition.

But three things stood out; a challenge, a debateable premise, and a way of engaging. In reverse order:

1 – Stella Creasy set out the case that it was issues and not party labelling that will win Labour the election. She suggested that it was not about ‘Are you Labour?’ but about progressive politics and the things people care about, be it climate change, the local cinema or Walthamstow Dog’s Track. Rather than being about finding the Labour people who are out there and turning them out come polling day, she advocated building relationships over time. Those who are familiar with the work myself and the Young Fabians have done since our delegation to the Obama campaign in Ohio, will know that I am very supportive of such an approach and am clear that this is a step change from how much of the Labour Party currently interacts with people.

2 – Stephen Twigg argued that one among many reasons for politicians to ‘get it’ on political reform and change, was that young people now are less partisan than in the past. Is this true, and if so, how do we change the way we organise campaigns and engage with the young public?

3 – Steve Richards set the challenge of compressing succinctly in a short phrase what Labour stands for now. He contrasted the difficulty of doing this with Tony Blair’s formation in 1996: trust us now, we’ve changed. I’m torn on the utility of this. Necessary for the national media and core message. But on a local level, I think that what can be most effective is empowering campaigners to come up with their own formations that they can be passionate about, rather than relying on a ‘party line’, to build those relationships with the people they meet.

On the latter, the suggestions that came from the panel were: ‘courage in the face of challenges’; ‘building a stronger, fairer economy’; and ‘for the many, not the few’ (as it captures both fairness and empowerment).

Where do you stand on these three issues? We can be optimistic about going into the general election and we should be passionate about why a Labour government is essential. But resolving such issues as these will help us get there.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

Primaries: a secondary solution

I’m back from Progress’ debate this evening on whether Labour should introduce primaries for the selection of candidates. From both the panel and the floor, it was heated and passionate. What was quickly apparent was the extent to which we do not have a settled primary model, and that there is significant variance in why people choose to position themselves on either side of the debate. It may surprise those of you that know I have advocated – based upon the experience of 80 members of the YF-LSN delegation to Ohio almost a year ago - the Labour party taking some lessons from Obama’s grassroots campaign, that I am not, in fact, massively in favour of Labour adopting primaries for candidate selection. They may well be part of the process of involving more people, but they should not be presented as the main cause for this goal nor as some sort of panacea for the Labour Party in the twenty-first century.

Progress, and their voice tonight, Will Straw, did attempt to set out a model. But I don’t find their argument convincing – ultimately because I don’t agree with what primaries are intended to solve. Will argued tonight that primaries are inevitable in terms of reinvolving people in the selection process. But its a solution in search of a problem - I just don’t believe that people are disaffected because they can’t vote in selections. Actually, I think how candidates are selected is among the least of the party’s problems. He also put the case that something needs to be done to address declining membeship  – this is more like it, but primaries are one of the red herrings amongst his wider argument for how this can be done (even though this is ultimately to get around the decline by abolishing membership altogether).

I think what both Will and I saw separately in the States in 2008, and in earlier US elections, was an impressive ability to involve a large number of people in a party political campaign, irrespective of party membership. But primaries – a cross-party structural mechanism - are the wrong lesson from America. Rather, it is the unique success Obama had in making people feel a part of his campaign in whatever way they wanted; recognising individuals’ skills, developing others, and empowering them to make a difference. It is not a linear relationship in either direction but we can’t simply think that implementing primaries will bring this about. David Lammy was right tonight when he said that we need to lower the bar to participation in the party, but wrong to conclude that that participation will necessarily last beyond the primary vote.

The arguments went backwards and forwards in progressive circles throughout the summer recess. Those against say it will favour the rich (I’m sympathetic to this view). Those for solve that by placing a cap on spending. But in placing a financial cap, whatever you think of money in politics, you are actually limiting the potential for engagement with a wide audience. In opening up our primaries to either a whole constituency or to those identifying/registering as Labour, we need to actually show that we are effective and innovative campaigners. In capping spending, we are ultimately capping candidates’ ability to print literature, travel the constituency (Labour does hold rural seats remember), and to talk to their prospective constituents. I’m a firm believer that all that was good about Obama’s campaign wasn’t necessarily driven by financial resources, but by people. But we do need to be realistic that campaigning costs money. We need to think about how a candidate can engage with a whole constituency on a limited budget if we are to solve those goals of participation and engagement, and also particularly if we aim to ensure atypical candidates – those that aren’t long-term councillors or politicos – are given a chance. Stepping back from the candidate level, an argument will need to be won with the public that administering an extra round of voting for each general election is worth the public money that this will cost. The argument will need to be won inside the Labour Party that the costs it incurs are worthwhile when it has local and general elections to fund too. I see little evidence that British people want to vote more than they currently do. Actually, we need to first convince them of the importance of the political process – to do this effectively we would have to demonstrate what (party) politics can achieve and more than likely this will mean bringing them into the fold. In other words, to create the environment for primaries to be a success, you already need to solve the goal the primary process would seek to reach.

David Lammy told tonight’s audience that forces of conservatism exist on both the left and the right of the Labour Party. My objection is not from a small-c conservative viewpoint though. Actually we need to do even more. Primaries are an easy option in terms of lowering the bar to participation but we can not say for certain that they will increase participation at the levels that Labour actually needs. We should not turn away people who are only willing or able to help a little, but we need to have the ability to take them on a journey of activism if and when they are ready. As such primaries can only be a small part of a package of institutional and grassroots party reform. A package that includes a commitment to invest in our people, to support them in welcoming new supporters, to train, to trust and to test. We should try things out – and I’m with Sunder Katwala on this one, that trialling primaries ahead of the London Mayoral election is probably the right place – but we must have clarity over why we are doing it and what we expect to gain.

This is a long-termer. And the debate’s going to run and run.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

Respect, Empower, Include: Everyday people. Extraordinary results.

Stronger together. Big tent. Opportunity for all.

Three phrases we’ve all heard within the broad spectrum of the labour movement. If we are to take one thing from Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, particularly noting where we stand politically right now, it is absolutely imperative that we start living and breathing such mantras in all we do as thinkers and campaigners on the left.

Unlike much of the Young Fabians’ excellent work over the years, the three publications we are presenting on our website today are not about policy. They are about people, relationships, our values, and the way we on the left organise and campaign. What the 80 members of the Young Fabian and Labour Staff Network delegation to Ohio last October/November saw was not a campaign impossible to emulate, nor one which formed on a radically different basis to any other successful campaign. But they did take part in an organisation that succeeded in spreading its best practice nationwide, which was coherent, attractive and approachable. It was a campaign that recognised the value of individuals and the strength of their collective endeavours. And it gave them a reason to take part in what Gordon Brown has called, people-powered politics.

Respect meant taking seriously the experiences, knowledge, skills and resources that were brought to the table by anyone and everyone. Include meant incorporating that offer when making decisions. And Empower meant the establishment of a structure that didn’t just assign tasks but allowed well-trained and supported volunteers to take real ownership.

In the neighbourhood in Columbus I campaigned in, the canvassing teams were run by volunteer Cecil Webster, a retired colonel from Texas. His military experience was recognised and utilised. And it made him perfect for this role: his skills of motivation kept canvassers plugging away to cover the patch; his sense of discipline ensured the tidiest campaign office you’ll ever see with everything in its place and no panic searches for GOTV sheets as volunteers line up waiting; his sense of humour helped people through the tougher times when they’d had a bad knock or were beginning to tire; and his self-styled ‘after action reports’ which allowed time and space for a proper group debrief, allowing volunteers to learn – semi-formally – from each other.

Internally and externally the campaign understood people and sought to build strong relationships. Relationships that it could then request something of. Alongside the mantra of Respect, Empower, Include, the campaign was frank in its assessment that ‘we build relationships because they are the only way to win’ and it didn’t seek to limit these relationships to its stalwarts. Everyone was not just welcome, but actively pursued to join the fold and trained in what they were doing.

Some Labour supporters will have been active in one seat all their lives; others will have campaigned in different areas of the country. Falling into the latter camp, I know there is some excellent campaigning going on in the Labour Party. But I also know, sadly, that (and not always without reason) the spread of our best campaigning ideas and methods is patchy.

The launch of three publications today will hopefully go some way to addressing this. They chronicle the experience of over 100 Young Fabian and Labour Staff Network members and others who took part in Obama’s campaign and offer ideas for Labour and union campaigns in the UK. From Ohio to Oxford Eastpresents the collective thoughts of the delegation and subsequent workshops and roundtables to offer practical suggestions for your campaigns. Lessons from the Obama campaign is a collection of individual articles written by grassroots participants from the UK. Lessons from the US union campaign for Obama brings together the methods of union campaigning in the US and presents a case for the Labour Party and trade unions to reassess the ways they work together in UK elections. No one is pretending that replication of Obama’s campaign is the golden egg we’ve been reaching out for. But these papers present some ideas that can make a difference.

What is exciting about the present is that it is the left in America who offer the ideas about organising campaigns for Labour to seize. The approach the Obama campaign took fits much better with the values of our movement than it does with our opponents.

We must consider how we interact with voters and each other, alter our attitude to trust, invest in people’s talents and develop them as individuals within our movement. In providing opportunity for all, within our big tent, we can be stronger together. As a party and as a nation.

Please click here for more information on the delegation and to download the publications. Let us know what you think – please comment below.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer, Young Fabian Executive

Additional event this week!

From Ohio to Oxford East
from 6pm, Thursday 30th April 2009
The Abbey pub, Westminster (1 Abbey Orchard Street, SW1P 2LU)

Following the hugely successful Young Fabian & Labour Staff Network delegation to Barack Obama’s campaign in Ohio last year, we are pleased to present three publications. These share the experience of the delegation and others who took part in the campaign, offering many ideas for your grassroots campaigning in the UK.

Please join members of the Young Fabians and Labour Staff Network for an informal drinks gathering at The Abbey pub on Thursday 30th April to mark Obama’s completion of 100 days in office and to discuss the publications.

Kindly RSVP if you intend to attend by emailing Adrian Prandle, International Officer, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk. For more information on the delegation and to read the publications, please visit the Lessons from America page on the Young Fabian website.

Strengthening Labour – our politics are moral, our practices must be too

One of Barack Obama’s successes last year that isn’t actually discussed at every opportunity is the link between the man and the campaign. The creation of a campaign organisation in the image of its figurehead. Realising through his published writing, the strength in using someone’s real perspective and experience to make a political point, Obama’s campaign succeeded in part through making personal connections such as the sharing of personal stories and journeys between campaign colleagues, between staff and volunteers and between volunteers and voters (and crucially, vice versa). At every opportunity those involved with the campaign were encouraged to interact on a very personal level in order to be able to build relationships with voters. The mirror was also seen through a style of working. ‘No Drama Obama’ was the part-descriptor, part-mantra the campaign used to describe itself and its candidate and the characteristics of this – calm, considered, emotionless and not reactionary (to a degree), the lack of in-fighting and the lack of micro-management – could be seen right down to the neighbourhood organisers.

If this was in any doubt before the weekend, the Labour Party must build a way of working that reflects the morality, fairness and equality of our politics and values. And I mean this in the most thorough of senses: our politicians, in government or not, party staff or those working for politicians, our members, our democratic structures and openness to participation. For too long, many – but especially those in the Westminster bubble – have not admitted or not sought to answer the very evident conflict between maintaining power for power’s sake (be it for the party or for individuals) and doing the right thing, the things we joined the party, or stood for election, to do. As someone who used to work in the bubble, I do not absolve myself. This is no longer anything to do with the electoral cycle, it is simply essential for those things which the Labour Party and its affiliates like the Fabian Society and Young Fabians stand for remaining at the centre of political discourse, action and legislation. This is not about the right versus left of our party, not about pragmatism against values. It is not anti-big tent politics and is definitely not about failing to understand how the media works. It is not about individual personalities. Rather it is about all of us taking responsibility as individuals and within our groups, communities, offices, societies and CLPs, to ensure that the content of what we believe and what we want to do for Britain (and the world) is heard. And empathised with. And trusted.

We can, must, still communicate through the traditional media. We should use new media in innovative ways to engage our supporters and the wider public. We should be realistic that not all policies can please all people at all times. But we must be honest that we want the best for as many people as possible. And we must be honest in how we seek to achieve this.

The slippery slope that Derek Draper/LabourList (for it is unclear how to separate the two) were headed down, could be seen on the BBC’s Daily Politics last month when Andrew Neil failed to referee a horrible and petty argument between Draper and Paul Staines (the video is conveniently on the DP homepage as I write). In a comment on this blog, I argued:

Where I talk about the web being a new Westminster Village, in essence I mean the blogosphere. I think both LabourList and Guido are successful, worth a read, and important in different ways to different audiences. But the Derek Draper and Paul Staines ‘debate’ on today’s Daily Politics on the beeb demonstrates exactly what I mean. Despite the freedoms of the web, the political blogosphere is incredibly insular and dominated by a small number of people.
This may change over time. But right now, for me, it isn’t going to be the most important battleground for Labour to win the next election – or even mobilise support. Actually, it has a lot of potential to be as off-putting as many people find politicians’ speeches or party meetings.

Draper/LabourList had made the mistake of allowing itself to be sucked in to competing with Guido Fawkes instead of ConservativeHome. Perhaps implying this was Staines’ intentional strategy gives him too much credit but the outcome has clearly worked in favour of him and against the Labour movement. I believe Draper’s intentions were good and though Damian McBride’s differed, they were founded upon the quality of intense loyalty. The problem came in judgment. Firstly, that thinking the Guido model blog was in some way significant to Labour/Brown winning the election. Secondly, in misunderstanding that the vast majority of voters only know what is being said on Guido’s site (or prospectively RedRag) when the story becomes big enough, and for ‘big’, you can practically read ‘true’ enough, for the mainstream media to report it. We saw that this weekend. Thirdly, in believing that Guido Fawkes represents the Tory party and therefore Labour must have its own counterpart. An irritant on the other end of the political spectrum to us does not necessarily mean the Tories are ‘winning online’. The right is winning through sites like ConservativeHome because they are having debates, generating ideas, organising campaigns online, but also, and vitally, offline with voter contact. Labour can actually be very effective at this.

Being able to separate real world politics from village stuff is hugely important here and where the failure lied. But it’s a bigger problem that has been bubbling for years and that we must seek to address. In getting caught up over the latest big story we must not forget it comes on the back of a succession of stories on MP’s use of allowances that – objectively, whatever your view of the coverage and the rules in place – has been damaging to Labour. We must quickly separate what goes on and, to a certain extent, are deemed appropriate ways to behave and work in the Westminster village from what we actually stand for. And just as quickly, we must rebuild the former in the image of the latter.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

Investing in people – a view from the Fabian book launch

When I started planning the Young Fabian and Labour Staff Network campaign trip to the US presidential election, I didn’t know who the candidate would be and certainly didn’t know the extent of the effect on political debate here in the UK. My inspiration came from my experience on campaigns in North Carolina and Georgia in 2004, the subsequent research I undertook following Labour’s victory in 2005 that looked at the similarity in tactics between that campaign and the Democrats’ efforts in 2004, and my desire to give other people the opportunity to see how things were done Stateside so as to bring back ideas to Labour campaigns across the UK.

The fetishization of Obama and his campaign typically leads to an emphasis on technology and online tools. Last night’s launch of the Fabian book, The Change We Need: What Britain can learn from Obama’s victory, was no different. The line-up of the panel led itself to discussion of old media and new media and how Labour must adapt its style and operations around modern communication channels. Important stuff. But it is very much a Westminster village argument – and as empowering as the web is, I don’t see signs yet that it is anything other than a new Westminster village: more diverse but still dominated by elites and failing to consistently reach and engage the wider British public. Such a focus misses some key aspects that we saw in Ohio that were strikingly different to how the Labour party organises its campaigns. In particular, how the Obama campaign utilised its greatest resource – people.

The discussion did move over a range of issues and the audience pressed the grassroots argument to the panel. Alastair Campbell said more than once that Obama ran a brilliant old-fashioned campaign as well as his modern campaign, but it’s hard to agree with Campbell’s assertion that Labour are probably still ok at the old-fashioned stuff. The Obama campaign, like previous Democratic campaigns, but unlike the majority of Labour’s, welcomed all-comers to its fold. It did not limit participation to membership, nor to number of branch meetings attended, nor quality of sub-clauses of motions proposed. But even more, it actively sought volunteers simply by asking. Each supporter we found on a doorstep was asked to volunteer and when they agreed, they signed up to a specific time on a specific date and received a follow-up phone call. Volunteers were valued. They were trained, debriefed, thanked, and empowered to contribute; their talents were utilised for common goals – like Cecil, the ex-Colonel, who ran our committee room with military precision (and disciplined cleanliness). Relationship-building between staff, volunteers and voters, was crucial and so training developed this. Everyone was trusted and seen as important and so campaigning strategy was shared. Empowerment, personal development, trust and solidarity. The strength of common endeavour. Isn’t this what the Labour party is all about? Yet such an approach is sporadic at best.

The research I undertook a few years ago concluded that incumbency was a significant factor where the 04-05 Democrat and Labour campaigns differed. We can’t let this be the case again, we can’t get caught up in thinking that because Obama was the challenger and Labour has 12-13 years of governing to defend that we can’t learn from his campaign. Other arguments against are that America is different (Ben Brandzel offers proof this isn’t the case), or that we don’t have the same financial resources. Frankly, that’s excuses. Not everything is different and if we don’t have the money then even more cause to take on board Obama’s organisation of free resources – the many people in Britain who believe they, their neighbours, and their strangers, will be better served by a Labour government. We can’t delay any longer.

Members of the Young Fabian and Labour Staff Network delegation, and others who attended December’s workshop, have fed their extensive experience of campaigning in both countries into a publication offering practical suggestions as to what local campaigners and organisers can do in their Labour campaigns. Look out for more information soon.

Adrian Prandle, International Officer