Labour Party Conference predictions

This is the first “proper” conference since the Labour Party’s General Election defeat of 2010, given the 2010 conference was dedicated to the results of the Labour Leadership election, and the subsequent shock win of Ed Miliband.

Aside from the almost certain grumbles about the conference venue – no grand old conference hotel in the secure zone for politicians and the media to hobnob – this year’s conference is likely to be almost entirely dominated by conversations on the internal structures of the Labour Party itself.

The Refounding Labour process, spearheaded by Peter Hain, has proposed  various measures with the aim of reconnecting the Labour Party with the public, and making it more focused on community activism.

Firstly, the relatively needless process of having Conference rubber-stamp the change from an elected Shadow Cabinet to one which is solely nominated by the Leader, Ed Miliband. In truth this change should be a matter for the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) given it is simply a change in the standing orders. However, since it was the Refounding Labour process that proposed it, it will go onto the conference floor for discussion. As a result of this expect to hear lots of chatter about which of the current incumbents wags think will be for the chop – and of course the much-mooted (hoped-for?) return of the ‘Prince Over The Water’ figure, David Miliband.

Secondly, the far more interesting proposal to add a new section to the Affiliates section of the electoral voting college of the Labour Party. So alongside the Trades Unions and the Socialist Societies such as the Fabian Society and others, registered supporters of the Labour Party will be invited to vote for leaders in the future. One can only assume that Ed Miliband won’t be expecting this to be used for a long time yet…

Further changes in this respect include restricting members and others to a maximum of one vote in a maximum of two sections of the electoral college. One for psephological  wonks really. The Trades Unions reaction to this has been relatively muted – they are presumably relieved that this is a relatively minor adjustment to their power in the party structures.

On the policy front, Shadow Ministers will set out in their keynotes a broad-brush approach to their policy portfolios, giving little specific detail but setting out a direction of travel. After the plethora of policy reviews (some say in the high 20s, others have counted over 70), members will want to see that some hard thinking has been done on issues such as health and social security – and of course on economic growth.

Names to watch on the fringe? My money is on strong performances from John Woodcock MP, Stella Creasy MP and Kate Green MP. Encounters to look out for? Well, I wouldn’t like to be stuck in the lift should Ed Balls and Alistair Darling meet unexpectedly!

Steve Race is Equalities Officer for the Young Fabians.

Forward, not back

The Greek debt crisis has thrown into stark relief the challenges that lie at the heart of European integration.

As the Eurozone countries decide whether to endorse a second Greek bailout, many are asking whether the European project has fallen into serial decline. Eurosceptics are rubbing their hands in glee, citing the Euro’s current plight as proof of their earlier predictions.

Yet there is another way of reading current events. As former Foreign Secretary David Miliband argues in the essay in the latest edition of Anticipations, the nature of the crash that sparked Greece’s collapse demonstrates that global problems require global solutions. As China and America increasingly focus on domestic concerns, faced with a leadership transition and election respectively, Europe has an opportunity to take a lead on the world stage.

Europe is well placed to do this.

It is after all the only part of the world that has embraced the idea of shared sovereignty. While integration has not been a cost-free process it has brought with it significant opportunities. In an increasingly interdependent world, dominated by a handful of superpowers, the benefits of economic and political cooperation are more evident now than ever.

Taking advantage of this will not be easy.

Europe will first need to address the deep disconnect that currently exists between the process of greater integration and public support for the European project. This is the outcome of integration by stealth, as the public have grown weary of economic measures being used to promote a broader political goal. Few events more powerfully exemplify this phenomenon than the current crisis in Greece. We now have a single currency, which many in Europe saw as a route into federalism, undermined not only by the weakness of the Greek economy but also by widespread public antipathy towards the EU. Rarely has a strong multilateral Europe been more important or more difficult to sustain.

This has resulted in the widely held view that Europe is a distraction from more important national economic concerns.

However, as Nick Maxwell from Chatham House rightly argues in the latest Anticipations, domestic economic challenges and foreign policy priorities are far from mutually exclusive. Sound economics, just like effective politics, requires strong international cooperation.

In fact Maxwell goes a step further, arguing that the UK should be at the centre of efforts to build a more effective international framework for economic cooperation between nations. It is hard to argue with this position. As power increasingly shifts East, there is a closing window of opportunity for a country like the UK to take a global lead on such defining issues.

However, Britain’s ambitions should not be limited to economic concerns alone.

As Jim Murphy powerfully outlines in the latest edition of Anticipations, we also need to drive forward a coordinated approach to issues of defence. The Arab Spring has turned on its head established notions that non-democratic governments can be stable and sustainable. Security in the future will come not from bilateral relationships with autocratic rulers, but from strong multilateral alliances between democratic nations. This will require countries to facilitate peace abroad in order to protect their interests at home.

It is a challenging task, especially in tough economic times. However, it is one that we can rise to, especially if we are able to coordinate foreign policy at the European level.

As the crisis in Greece has shown, a more integrated Europe brings with it significant risks. However, in an interdependent world dominated by China and America surely these are risks worth taking. Now is the time for Europe to shed its image as a reluctant actor and assert its place on the international stage.

There is space in the world for another superpower. Europe must decide if it ready to become it.

James Green is Editor of Anticipations

• Read our online taster edition of the Summer 2011 edition of Anticipations here.
• The full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. Joining couldn’t be easier and six months membership costs just £5. Click here for more information regarding joining the Young Fabians.

Right stupidity

In this Guest Post, Young Fabian member Christine Quigley takes issue with calls for “a leader of the Labour right”.

For ten minutes, we were all playing nice. Labour had elected a new leader, and Party Conference saw a swell of support for (not-quite-Red) Ed from all sections of the party. Most of us were just relieved that the long wait was over, and that we could begin the serious work of winning back the country from the Conservatives, rather than sniping at rival supporters over Twitter. For me at least, the Manchester conference this year embodied a feeling that we were all on the same side.

A feeling that lasted right up until I read Sion Simon’s blogpost yesterday about the need for a leader of the Labour Right.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the Labour Right has a leader. His name’s Ed Miliband. He’s the same leader as everyone else in the party has.

Calls like Sion Simon’s do nothing but further foster factions within the party. Debate is good; division is not. We need only to look at Labour’s implosion into internal wrangling after the 1951 and 1979 election defeats to know how disastrous this sort of infighting can be. Just last week, some Conservatives were attempting to capitalise on disaffected David Miliband supporters by extending the warm hand of friendship (and an invitation to join the party). I have great faith in all those who supported the defeated leadership candidates to back our new leader; putting party over petty factionalism.

We have always been a party that accommodates different voices, and we are stronger for it. It’s crucial that important decisions and policy positions that we take up over the next few years are discussed and debated, to ensure that we’re getting them right. But the scattergun support picked up by the leadership candidates itself demonstrated how individuals can cross factional boundaries. Setting up a candidate to channel right-wing dissent isn’t helping anyone. (And really – Ed Balls?) We have to stop talking about right and left and start talking about what we all believe in; fairness, equality and justice.

So, whether you’re a unilateral-nuclear-disarmament, nationalise-it-all, dyed-in-the-wool red, or the palest pink ultra-Blairite, now is the time to redouble your support for Ed Miliband and the new Shadow Cabinet team. We won’t all agree on everything the party leadership does over the next four-and-a-half years, but we can agree on one thing; Britain is better under a Labour Government. That’s something we all need to fight for.

After New, what’s next?

In this guest post, Young Fabian Rob Newman reflects on the analysis of New Labour throughout the Labour leadership contest.

I’m still waiting impatiently for my ballot paper to arrive so that I can cast my vote in the leadership contest. I supported David Miliband from the moment that he announced his candidacy. My view has been reinforced over the course of these interminable months – not by the candidates’ visions of the future, but rather their assessment of our recent past.

There has been a lot of accurate analysis of New Labour – its undoubted strengths (an unprecedented three election victories) and its acknowledged weaknesses (too hands off with the market, too hands on with the State, in the words of James Purnell).

But there’s been a lot of inaccurate analysis, too – predicated on a persistent, but sadly mistaken, belief about what exactly New Labour was.

The argument goes that New Labour was simply a marketing device; a coup by people who weren’t ‘really’ Labour who compromised on our founding beliefs to get us in to power. Ed Miliband showed that, unfortunately, he falls somewhat for this myth when he wrote recently that “New Labour nostalgia says that there is a tension between our values and our electability”. According to this view, New Labour can be reduced to certain policies (ID cards, tuition fees, the war in Iraq – as if war can ever be a ‘policy’), or even to certain people (Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, John Hutton – choose your bête noire!).

Therefore, with those certain people no longer on the front line and the junking of those policies – hey presto, we will have ‘changed’.

The truth is that New Labour did not identify a “tension” between our values and our being in government. What it identified was the fact that we had failed to broaden our appeal beyond certain groups in society; the “tension” was between our party and the electorate.

It identified other things, too. That economic prosperity and social justice were two sides of the same coin – and that you couldn’t have one without the other. That matters of crime and security profoundly affect our voters – much more so than the better-off Tories who could escape the fear of crime in their leafy suburbs. That the responsibility not to walk by on the other side doesn’t end simply because of a line drawn on a map.

Most of all, it identified that while our values remain immutable, the methods of putting them into practice must forever be in flux. The Labour of 1945 was of course different to the Labour of 1964, 1974 or 1997, with programmes which would have been unrecognisable or indeed antithetical one to the other. But each manifesto was right for its time – a bewildering fact, until we realise the truth of Herbert Morrison’s statement that “Socialism is what a Labour Government does”.

New Labour, then, was an understanding of the need for a broad-based appeal to the whole country – irreducible to Policy A or Person X. Some candidates seem to have bought the myth, moving from astute analysis of the last Labour Government’s failings (the failure to correct the excesses of the City; the lack of affordable housing; not addressing the rising tide of resentment at the speed of change in our communities) to a position of detachment from what is, in truth, a profound record of service to the country.

By all means let us examine what kind of appeal we can fashion for the whole country, not just parts of it, in 2015. By all means let us recognise that a political party, whether in opposition or in government, needs to maintain its connection with the public whose support it seeks. But let’s not pretend that anyone is going to be voting on Iraq, tuition fees or ID cards in 2015. They will be asking whether we have come up with a vision – not for big, interventionist government, or government which retreats and leaves people to sink or swim. Rather, they will be looking for a government which enables people to fulfil their potential; which curbs the excesses of the market while recognising that private enterprise is a wealth creator in our society; which asks people to take up their responsibilities to one another as well as protects their rights.

That government can be a Labour Government. It won’t be branded as ‘New Labour’ – but it will be buttressed by the same understanding that gave that electoral phenomenon such dramatic life.

A single issue voter

During the general election I came across plenty of single issue voters and in this Labour leadership election I plan on being a single issue voter myself. My issue is women in the Labour Party and what our next leader plans to do to increase the number of women participating in the Party and standing for election. My experience of being a candidate was of operating in what at times felt like an all male world. Even within the Young Fabians it is a challenge to get young women to stand for election to the Executive, although our Young Fabian Women event the other week showed we have no shortage of bright, young women with lots to offer. I want not just commitments around All Women Shortlists and balancing the cabinet, whilst important, in many ways these just disguise broader issues around the engagement of women in politics. I want to hear the candidates’ ideas around how they will get more women involved in grass roots politics, the role of women at Party Conference and how they will encourage more women to seek selection as parliamentary candidates. That’s my single issue, so far there have been a few promising murmurings from some candidates but I want more. Whoever comes out with a clear plan for getting more women active in the Labour Party gets my vote.

You can be too nice…

I was a candidate in the General Election and at my first hustings my opponent pulled out my chair for me to sit down. He was simply being polite and it was well meant, but straight away it left me feeling that I was somehow (as I was) being treated differently to the other candidates.

At tonight’s leadership hustings all the candidates went to great lengths to talk about their aspirations to widen the appeal of the Labour Party and in particular get more women involved. They were also super supportive and friendly to Diane, but in doing so somehow singled her out as different, as if she needed that extra bit of support. Now I know that people will respond with comments about nominations (indeed, one of the candidates made the same remark tonight), but regardless of how she got there, Diane is in the contest for Labour leader. She has proved herself more than capable of holding her own in public debates and whilst the older brother routine of her opponents is well meant (and probably unintentional) it risks undermining her contribution.

I realise there is no malice involved, and the other candidates are as well intentioned as my chivalrous Conservative, but if we are going to have a serious discussion about women in the Labour Party and about changing the culture of politics, we need to start with the contest itself.

The same, but different. What I learnt from the first Labour leadership hustings.

Don’t forget the Young Fabians are co-hosting a leadership hustings on Monday 14 June. For more information, visit this website.

I was lucky/unlucky enough (depending on your perspective) to attend the New Statesman Labour leadership hustings earlier in the week. As the hustings took place on the same day as nominations closed, I imagine they’ll get more media attention than the other fifty-odd hustings taking place across the country over the coming weeks. So much that could have been said about them may already have been said.

For what it’s worth, this is a (personal) summary of what I learnt at those hustings:

• The two Eds could barely conceal their contempt for one another. Ed M had a good line about it “being like the Treasury” when Ed B was pulled up for waffling. Ed B made some pointed remarks about the manifesto Ed M wrote.
• Diane Abbott will make the hustings more entertaining, for sure. But she’s likely to drag the other candidates left as they attempt to combat her popularity amongst a fairly vocal section of the Labour party. (See Hopi Sen’s post on why Mili D may come to regret Abbott being on the ballot).
• We should avoid a three-month long public self-flagellation. We lost the last election because we didn’t have a positive vision/narrative for the future of the country. Spending the whole leadership contest picking over what went wrong in 13 years will be an horrifically pointless waste of time and is unlikely to endear us to the electorate (this is an question of balance, not one of avoiding talking about the difficult introspective issues).
• Only two candidates, in my view, showed they had the ‘common touch’ – Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham. The Milibands show flashes of passion, although at times came across as managerial automatons. Ed Balls has a surprising ability to mix verbosity, pomposity and aggression when speaking.
• All of the candidates need better lines on the economic issues facing the country – Abbott, Burnham and the Milis need more substance, Balls need to stop sounding like he’s reading from a textbook.
• The consensus from those in the room tweeting about the event was that Andy Burnham had an awful hustings. I disagree. I thought he performed well and certainly better than could have been expected. He was passionate and refused to abandon his record for expediency – not populist, but principled. I think he will play well on television, too – unlike some of the other candidates. Far from being an “also ran”, I think Andy Burnham may be a dark horse in the campaign. Some of his answers lacked polish and substance, although this will change as the campaign drags on.
• David M was impressive on defence and foreign affairs. His answers on Trident showed real leadership potential, even if they weren’t universally welcomed by the audience (the event was co-sponsored by the CND).
• The battle between the Miliband brothers is going to be a key focus of the media, and their facile analysis of it will annoy and irritate me by the end of the summer.
• Andy Burnham’s make-up was good.
• This is going to be a long campaign, fuelled by the same half-baked phrases and jokes. I’m glad I’ll only be going to a couple of hustings. I’m more glad I’m not one of the candidates.
• We should have had a proper leadership contest in 2007.
• Hecklers should stop looking so smug with themselves. They are not big. Or clever.

I am undecided as to who to support. Genuinely.

In truth there is more that unites the candidates than divides them. Hopefully by September there will be an obvious choice for Leader.

A vision for our future: Why I’m Backing David Miliband

Unlike most of MPs who nominated David Miliband for the leadership of the Labour Party this week, I haven’t worked with him, I haven’t chatted with him in the division lobby, or on the benches in House.

Unlike the journalists who try to un-pick the Labour leadership contest, I’m not looking for a juicy story, I’m not interested in his choice of tie colour, or how he’s getting on with his brother.

I’ve been watching this leadership race develop like every other Party member. I’ve met some of the candidates on the campaign trail in London during the election; I’ve seen them on TV and I’ve read their articles in the press.

Now that the final list of candidates is clear, I’m also clear on who I want to support, who I want to win and why.

I’m a life-long Labour Party member and I want our new leader to be the next Prime Minister.

I want to support a candidate who has demonstrated their credentials for that job and who is up for the challenge of taking on David Cameron and Nick Clegg from the day he or she is elected.

As a normal party activist I want a new leader who will be proud of the record that our party has in government, particularly the advances made under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown since 1997.

I don’t want a leader who is going to trash that record. I don’t want a leader who is going to exploit disagreements within our movement. And I don’t want a leader who wants to step back from the difficult decisions we need to take.

I want a leader who can talk openly about our disagreements and who can confidently acknowledge our mistakes, but who will also move our Party forward together and learn from where we went wrong.

Our Party needs reforming, from top to bottom. We need to re-think the way we recruit members and how we organise ourselves in our local communities. We need a new and more open approach to discussing policy that is inclusive and transparent. We should be cutting-edge and dynamic in our local and national campaigns. We need a leader who wants the Labour Party to change and is willing and able to drive that.

I want a Labour Prime Minister who understands the aspirations of everyone in my community, including those who struggle to get by, and wants to help them get the best for them and their family. Someone who will recognise the needs of everyone in society, not just people who are members of the Labour Party.

I believe David Miliband is that leader, and that’s why I’m endorsing him today as my candidate to be Labour’s next Prime Minister.

Just what is Liberal Conservatism?

This week is set to be the International week of the 2010 Election campaign. So in theory, we should all understand a little more of what William Hague’s Liberal Conservatism is all about. Ahead of the week I’ve just read the Tory manifesto International affairs section and am still puzzled. I’m hoping, but not expecting a little more clarity during the week.

Rightly, the manifesto identifies that more than ever the interests of nation states are interconnected, economically and politically.  But the policy solutions still seem ideologically unclear and unsound.   

While the answers to Britain’s domestic challenges are met with a shrink-state response, the manifesto calls for “a concerted response from the state” in its international chapter.

There also seems to be a glaring contradiction in Conservative policy to the European single currency, varying between forthright hostility to a guarantee for the public to have their say:

“a Conservative government would never take the UK into the euro.”

And later “We will ensure that by law no future government can hand over areas of power to the EU or join the Euro without a referendum of the British people.”

Now, I’m not advocating that now is the right time to join the Euro, but a manifesto is always the right time to be clear what your position is.

The document is unclear of what One World Conservatism is or what Liberal Conservatism would achieve. But from the Tories foreign policy record, I don’t relish the prospect of these ideologies guiding British foreign policy.

Let’s not forget these things as we move into the international week of this election David Cameron went on a free trip to South Africa, funded by a lobbying group founded by a former member of the South African military intelligence to bust sanctions against South Africa. Let’s also not forget that when Labour took office our international aid budget was in decline and we where losing a beef war with Europe. And today in the European Parliament, the Tories lose more legislative proposals than the Liberals, Greens and Communists because of Hague and Cameron’s self-imposed exile from the mainstream grouping.

In the week ahead let’s continue to take a long hard look at the Tories and ask Cameron and Hague, just what is your vision for Britain in the world and where would we be if we took your advice?

How Labour can make EU Policy ‘Back Young Britain’

The recent edition of Anticipations contains an article from Catherine Stihler, one of the Labour MEPs for Scotland.

Catherine argues that Britain must collaborate with EU states both to forge a stable recovery and to build a sustainable social market economy by 2020. The latter is the EU’s response to the Lisbon Agenda (to make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy by 2010).

Vital to achieving this goal is the investment in education and skills by domestic governments to equip tomorrow’s work force with the skills for a global economy. This is the very nub of the interaction between the national and the international in policy making. Investment in the skills of its citizens by a national government will allow its workforce to compete for the high skilled jobs of a global marketplace.

Labour has a record of a sustained investment in schools, skills, universities, research and development running hand in hand with a jobs and growth strategy that is beyond Britain’s borders to ensure we look for the jobs of tomorrow.

We should continue this in the next election manifesto as we look beyond our borders for growth, jobs and trade. Labour should continue to make a commitment to young people to allow us to achieve our full potential in the economy of tomorrow. I believe the Backing Young Britain campaign should continue beyond the recession as a positive way of investing in our future to bring high quality jobs to Britain and allow us to compete internationally. Labour can co-ordinate our policies in Westminster and in Brussels to keep European policy working for young Britain and building for our future.