We need a state that responds to regional issues, not a Big Society

Conferences are supposed to highlight the differences between parties. Members and MPs are paraded before the media to denounce their rivals and rally the troops in anticipation of the next round of political combat in the Commons.

However, the bombastic rants of shadow cabinet ministers (think Ed Balls and his criticism of “Butch Cameron and the flat-line kid”) tells us less about the differences between the two main parties than the more subtle ways Labour MPs respond to issues on which there is broad agreement on across the political spectrum. It is by listening out for those key phrases spoken at Fringe events that are repeated again and again that the humble party supporter can understand where his/her politicians will draw the battle lines against the opposition.

At this year’s Fabian Fringe, the emphasis has been on building a more intelligent, more flexible, and more responsive state. The need to “innovate” has been stressed at various events, as has the need to accept and adapt to a post-financial crisis landscape where old ideas and values no longer have the same relevance. In particular, we have witnessed at this conference a de-emphasising of redistributive measures and the role of central government in securing economic fairness in favour of ‘higher level’ mechanisms of achieving more equality, and local or regional means of stimulating change.

There is overlap here with the Conservatives’ rhetoric on the ‘Big Society’, where the powers and responsibilities of providing state welfare and services are devolved to voluntary organisations, civic society, and local government. Is Labour seeking to adopt the ‘Big Society’ from David Cameron in the same way that Ed Miliband adopted ‘One Nation’ from Benjamin Disraeli?

‘NO’ is the resounding response. While both parties are emphasising the importance of localism, participatory democracy, and regionally-tailored services, only Labour is making the connection between these three objectives and central government’s role in making it happen. On the evidence of this year’s conference, Labour is aware that divorcing issues of regional investment, regional pay, and regional welfare from regional democracy and regional funding is a recipe for disaster.

Helen Goodman, writing in The Shape of Things to Come: Labour’s New Thinking, explains that for a more decentralised state to work for the people, Labour must build regional responses on the basis of trust, rather than control:

“The localism agenda of this government purports to give more local accountability, but the various arms of policy are pulling in too many opposing directions for this to work. Labour needs to develop its own collective approach, building on local democratic institutions and expanding and strengthening accountability. Even on a practical level, extracting maximum efficiency from funds will mean trusting local politicians to know their own areas and deliver on priorities in the most efficient way possible.”

However, the party can go further than this. Instead of relying on local representatives to deliver what is needed, Labour could embrace participatory budgeting and champion micro referendums on issues of community spending to ensure that council decisions are fully democratic and placed in the hands of those most affected.

A Labour government would also have to ensure that regions had access to an adequate supply of funding. To this end, it would be prudent to stop talking of a ‘British Investment Bank’ now and start talking about the need for ‘Regional Investment Banks’ instead.

The party could also revive the idea of regional parliaments, buried in the first term of New Labour. These don’t have to consist of expensive ‘white elephant’ legislative buildings or the creation of an extra layer of bureaucracy. Instead, they should be hotbeds of creative thinking on local government, given real powers by Westminster but then left alone to come up with imaginative solutions to their own geographical areas of responsibility.

The truth is that some councils are more innovative and willing to try new things than others. It is up to the state to promote best practice and provide the funds and expertise to ensure each locality is properly equipped to tailor the solutions right for them. The above are just a few ideas on how to achieve this.

Perhaps if some of them are taken on board, we can replace Cameron’s bankrupt ‘Big Society’ with a Britain where communities are fair, free, and properly funded.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog 

Young people need to talk about politics, and politicians need to listen

Hoor Pathan, project manager of LetsTAP (Let’s Talk About Politics) wowed the Fabian Summer Conference when she asked Ed Miliband directy to engage young people in political discourse. Here, she talks about the principle behind the project. 

Young people are often brushed off the political landscape as apathetic, unrealistic or just not bothered at all with politics as a whole.

However, the truth is far different. With the rapid changes for the worse that the Coalition has brought in, and the massive cuts taking place across all sectors which affect young people both directly and indirectly, the young are being forced to face challenges of a magnitude they have never imagined.

Tuition fees trebled. No guarantee of work after graduation. A Tory peer recently said “Britain’s never had it better.” As an 11-year-old in Britain today, I say: “Britain’s never had it worse.”

But the recent problems go far deeper than just university fees and cuts to services. The biggest problem today is that young people are trapped in a type of poverty which many have not noticed. It isn’t financial poverty, although this remains a huge problem which politicians have yet to face. No, the poverty I’m talking about is the poverty of aspiration, and the poverty of hope in politics.

You could blame the disappointment of ‘Clegg-Mania’ for this. However, the problem goes further than simple partisan excuses. Young people aren’t switched off; they just haven’t had the chance to get their voice across. The dissatisfaction isn’t about policy alone; it’s about being heard by those in power.

So what needs to be done? The good news is that Labour has already started taking steps in the right direction. Ed Miliband promised to focus on young people when he said “The work of a new generation has begun” in his acceptance speech after becoming leader. He’s already proved this isn’t just empty rhetoric, that he really means it, by holding talks with young people across the country.

But it doesn’t end there. Like in other walks in life, getting young people engaged in politics is a process of ‘Follow the leader.’ Members of the shadow cabinet, junior ministers, and local politicians including councillors, mayors and local cabinets need to go out and reach out to a generation who feels like they have been abandoned. A generation who feels as if a parent has left them and forgotten about them, a generation who feels that the government has lost love for them.

Both national and local politicians need to hold meaningful, rather than tokenistic, talks with young people where young people can actively raise their voice, put forward their concerns and feel as though they are being heard. Then we can move on to the bigger challenge, putting politicians into a position where they have to admit to the young where they’ve got it wrong and show how the ideas young people have are being used to shape policy.

As the political spectrum changes once again, the future of progressive politics lies with involving the young. The new centre ground is where the young who come from generations of non-voters feel inspired to go home and get their disenfranchised families out to the polling station come May 2015.

Hoor Pathan is project manager of ‘LetsTAP’

LetsTAP is a project aimed at involving young people in dialogue and debate with key local and national politicians, heads of services and decision makers in order to provide a safe platform for regular dialogue between decision makers and the young people.

LetsTAP aims to not only open channels of regular dialogue between decision makers and stakeholders, but also provide young people with a chance to actively scrutinize policy and services which affect them through various different methods, each relevant to the specific area of discussion.

Twitter: @Lets_TAP

Ed takes on the City

“We need a banking system that serves the public.”

Ed Miliband set the stage for a full-on confrontation with the banking industry earlier today when he insisted that there must be a “full, open and independent inquiry” into financial services. Speaking at the Fabian Summer Conference, Miliband argued that the revelation that traders at Barclay’s had knowingly manipulated key interest rates in order to boost profits proved that decisive action was needed to end the corrosive culture of greed at the heart of the City.

Miliband’s speech was a manifesto for action. He demanded that a Leveson-style inquiry into the financial services begin immediately, with full powers to unearth where criminal wrongdoing had occurred. Suggesting that the criminal justice system did too little to prosecute “white collar crime”, he argued that the law needed to change to guarantee that those found guilty of illegal activity within the industry are put behind bars, and banned from working in the sector ever again. Finally, he made the case for a new banking “code of conduct” to ensure that workers in the City conformed to a higher moral standard than the profit motive.

The Conference audience welcomed these proposals with warm applause, even though much of what Miliband said had been mentioned earlier in the week. What made this speech stand out, however, was the strength with which the Labour leader denounced those who had dragged the banking industry through the mud. For once, Ed didn’t pull his punches. He suggested that the chief executives at Barclay’s would not outlast this latest scandal, claiming that they were either knowingly complicit in the illegal activities of their traders, or woefully negligent in supervising them. Intriguingly, he also stated that “no one believes the Libor [interbank interest rate] scandal is the end of the story” tapping into the popular view that the murky world of banking has a whole lot more horror stories to divulge.

Ed’s polling has improved in recent months, but he struggles when it comes to voters’ perceptions of his decisiveness. This speech- and you can bet it will be the first of many on the subject- was designed to close that gap. Cameron will struggle to appear credible denouncing the very people who bankroll his party- a report by GMB revealed that nearly 60% of donations to the Tory party come from individuals and companies linked to finance, hedge funds and other City interests. The advantage is firmly with Labour in this instance, and Ed is pushing it as far as it will go.

What is needed closer to the election is a coherent narrative on how to reform the sector for good. Ed indicated what might be included in this, such as the introduction of “challenger banks” to break up the monopolies of Britain’s banking behemoths, and an end to self-regulation of the industry.

What is encouraging is that, with the public mood behind him, Ed is able to take on the industry head on and firmly lay down the law to the City. No more does he need to pussy-foot around the issue of taking the bankers to task. The electorate is behind reform, and strong, serious reform at that. All Ed needs to do is keep up the pressure to see Labour’s poll lead soar.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Crunch Time For Ed

Tomorrow, Ed Miliband will address the Fabian Summer Conference in a question-and-answer session guaranteed to feature in this Sunday papers.

What is asked of him, and how he replies, has the potential to determine his political fortunes right into Autumn.

It is rash to underestimate the significance of what party leaders say in any forum, and what Ed says tomorrow has the potential to influence the (entirely healthy) internal debate currently taking place within Labour. In recent weeks, both the party and the country have been rocked by political storms that could threaten Labour’s delicate lead in the polls. How Ed addresses them, tomorrow and in the weeks to come, is important for the continued fortunes of the party.

The GMB Union’s motion to “monitor the factional activity” of the New Labour think-tank, ‘Progress’, within the party has led to bitter clashes both in the virtual world of the blogosphere and the real world of the CLP. Ed recently indicated that he is opposed to excluding organisations within Labour, but has so far shied away from addressing concerns about the ideological direction of the party, or fielded questions about how far the leadership is influenced by internal think-tanks. Perhaps a curious Fabian will challenge him on these issues tomorrow.

Even more recently, the scandal surrounding Barclay’s manipulation of key interest rates has put banking back into the spotlight and re-raised the issue of bank regulation.  Yesterday, Ed demanded “proper regulation of the market because the rules at the moment are clearly not being enforced, or are not working.”  One of Ed’s greatest strengths is articulating the public mood (as he did during the phone hacking scandal), and here once again he managed to encapsulate the righteous anger of the electorate at large.

However, words are one thing, action another. How is Ed really going to address regulation when in power? The recommendations of the Vickers Report are not due to be fully implemented until 2019, by which time many of the changes may be shelved or transformed in response to world events, and lobbying by the banking industry itself. Would Ed endorse a Leveson-style inquiry into banking culture, hauling chiefs like Bob Diamond and Stephen Hester into the dock for rigorous public scrutiny? Would he insist on a faster separation of investment and retail banking? These are all unknowns, and all questions to be asked of a future Labour PM.

Ed is arguably in his strongest position yet as party leader. Overtaking David Cameron on personal ratings for the first time in May, and with Labour riding high in the polls, he has the political capital now to really fashion Labour in his own image.

However, he must be careful to take the party with him. The Q&A tomorrow will help determine whether the Fabians believe he is headed in the right direction.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Ed Miliband will be at the Fabian Summer Conference tomorrow, taking questions from 2pm

Young People and National Identity

As Britain nursed a collective hangover incurred by the pomp and ceremony of the Jubilee weekend, Ed Miliband chose his moment to argue that Labour should re-connect with ‘Englishness’, and launch a debate on national identity in modern Britain.

He argued that Labour needs to “embrace a positive, outward looking version of English identity” and convince the public that ‘British’ and ‘English’- and for that matter, ‘Scottish’ and ‘Welsh’- identities, need not be mutually exclusive.

This may be Miliband’s first foray into the hazardous territory of national identity, but it comes at an important time. With the Scottish referendum on independence a mere two years away, and the number of those describing themselves as English more than double the amount who describe themselves as British, it is understandable that Labour feels the need to construct a coherent narrative on identity politics.

However, Miliband’s motives for pushing this agenda seem suspicious. Undoubtedly, Labour’s top table have been pressed to address the strange phenomena of ‘Englishness’ in response to evidence that devolution to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland has made English citizens feel short-changed. According to IPPR, those who identify strongly as English are likely to be critical of the devolution settlement and in favour of the development of “an English dimension” to the governance of England. This poses a challenge to political parties that wish to preserve the union while keeping English voters onside.

Yet the rise of a strictly English national identity has been uneven across age cohorts and the ideological divide. A YouGov survey conducted in October 2011 revealed that while 63% of those questioned in total described themselves as English, only 53% of 18-24 year olds did. The discrepancies between Labour and Conservative voters are even more striking. 76% of Tories described themselves as English, while only 56% of Labour supporters said likewise.

It is fair to assume, therefore, that young, Labour-supporting people feel less attached to the ‘English’ national identity than their older, Conservative peers. Perhaps this is because young people have less awareness of the cultural and political distinctions between England and the rest of the UK; perhaps it’s because they do not pay taxes that are spent across the borders; perhaps because the curriculum teaches British history, rather than ‘English’ history. Maybe those familiar with ‘Old Labour’ rhetoric share the socialist view that borders are meaningless, and that it is class- rather than nationality- that divides us.

However, I believe the age cohort data points to the fact that national identity is acquired, not inherent. What is most likely is that as young people grow up, they conform to the identity impressed upon them by their education, peers, and local community. If you look back to the Young People’s Social Attitudes Survey conducted in 2003, nearly two-thirds of 12-19 year olds described themselves as British. ‘Britishness’ may be the identity first learnt by the majority of young people, absorbed through those symbols like the Union Flag, the Royal Family, and the map of the British Isles themselves, as well as through interactions with parents and other relations. Different identities are acquired later on. Sometimes these are other national identities, sometimes class or regional ones. It is strange that the Labour leader is selecting to emphasise this one English identity now, rather than focusing on others more readily grasped by the young and adults alike- especially class identity.

By pushing the ‘Englishness’ agenda now, Miliband may actually help perpetuate those narrow national identities that threaten the integrity of the Union. In fact, a glance at the data above suggests that those most likely to resonate with Ed’s new message are older, non-Labour voters. Perhaps his recent speech was a ploy to woo the same Middle Englanders that won New Labour its last three majorities. If so, it may come at the expense of truly connecting with Labour’s next generation whose concerns are far removed from squabbles about nationality.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog

Is Labour the party for labour?

Bringing Labour more closely in line with the interests of organised labour is the solution to the party’s electoral woes, not the problem. 

This week, I took part in a debate at my university between our campus’ Labour Party Society and a branch of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a UK-based network of socialist activists who seek to create a working-class movement against capitalism. The debate sought to answer the question: “Is Labour the party for labour?” and explored the relationship between the party, Trade Unions, and the working-class over the course of the 20^th century.

Labour has been entwined with the interests of organised labour since its birth in 1900. Back in the 1940s, Nye Bevan described how Labour “grew from the bowels” of the Trade Union movement, and Ed Miliband stated earlier this year that “the link [between the unions and Labour] will stay and I believe in that link.”  The Unions have traditionally been seen as the political vehicles of the working-class, and have been courted by Labour throughout the 20^th century in order to provide funds, members, and activists for the party. Labour’s alliance with the Unions has also historically been seen as legitimating its claim to be “the people’s party.”

However, the course of history shows that Labour has not always been as close a friend of the Unions as it likes to profess. As a speaker for AWL explained,  the problem with the party is that it committed itself from the very start to parliamentary democracy, disavowing other methods of political expression in order to pursue representation in the Commons. This principle is blamed for limiting Labour’s ability to accurately represent the interests of labouring men and women. AWL promotes a much broader conception of democracy, where the working-class can gather together, make decisions, and take action as a self-organised collective.

Labour has also always shied away from openly taking the side of the unions during industrial actions. This tendency originates way back to 1926, when Labour lent only lukewarm support to the General Strike of that year, and continued right through the 1980s, when the party sought to distance itself from the ‘ultra-leftists’ leading the Miners’ Strike. Again, this is a result of the party’s commitment to established political practices. Labour’s first Prime Minister, Ramsay Macdonald, argued that the party had to win “respectability” in order to compete meaningfully for control of the Commons, and claimed that this could not be gained by endorsing disruptive strikes and direct action.

This tendency has frequently set the Unions at odds with the party leadership. In recent years, there has even been talk of certain Unions disaffiliating from Labour in order to dramatically demonstrate that the party is no longer seen as representing working-class interests.

How important is it that Labour is seen to be on the side of the working-class and organised labour? In this age of austerity, the answer is self-evident. Labour’s next majority can arguably only be won by regaining the 5 million voters it lost between 1997 and 2010. These ‘lost voters’ were overwhelmingly working-class or unemployed men and women who gradually came to believe that the party they once supported no longer represented them. In the last Labour government, where was the policy on employee rights, union freedoms, and a living wage? Today, talking about continuing to chop away at the welfare state in a similar- if not identical- fashion to the Tories will not win those voters back to Labour.

The Unions can help Labour here. The number of Union members in Britain far exceeds the number of Labour party members, and as political organisations they produce policy ideas and suggest reforms that can be utilised by the party to bring it more in line with working-class needs.

The AWL speakers at our event suggested that Labour must democratise its internal party structures in order to incentivise working-class people and union members to take a leading role in the policy process. For too long this has been in the hands of the party leadership and MPs, out of reach of the vast majority of party members. Perhaps a full-scale review of internal decision-making procedures will ensure Labour’s policies will be more in line with the people it says it represents- and win back those 5 million voters to boot.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabians Blog 

Sharpening the Knives

The frenzied atmosphere of an election season may not seem to be the best time to try and make sense of the strange political manoeuvrings we have witnessed lately.

However, the Council and Mayoral elections taking place on May 3^rd are an important milestone for all the national parties. In a political and media world that seems obsessed with mimicking the drama and dynamism of the American system, the 2012 elections have taken on the character of the US Midterms- with important implications for how the results will be processed by those in the Westminster village.

There has been a noticeable surge in backbench unrest among Conservative MPs. Today, Nadine Dorris launched a blistering attack on the “arrogant posh boys”   (David Cameron and George Osborne) running the country, while another unnamed Tory sneered that Cameron seems to be “putting the school run ahead of the national interest.” These comments can be legitimately dismissed as the bluster of a few loose cannons, but they conceal a deeper malaise in the Parliamentary Tory Party. Badly bruised by a mishandled Budget and suffering the worst polling since 2008, some discontents have been publicly sharpening the knives in a show of defiance toward No. 10, egged on by a press eager to witness a big upset.

There is no suggestion that there will be a leadership challenge any time soon- if at all. However, it is possible that those Conservatives who have been put off by Cameron’s wishy washy social agenda and perceived capitulation to the Liberal Democrats on issues like Lords Reform and internet surveillance are trying to ‘talk down’ the party in the run-up to the elections. Why? So that they can use a bad result to force the Prime Minister down a more Conservative path, by claiming that Tory voters are deserting Cameron’s party because he is not conservative enough.

What about Labour? England’s ‘mid-terms’ will serve as a useful indicator of the party’s revival in the South.  Labour’s next majority cannot be attained without the help of at least some of those seats wooed by Tony Blair in 1997. A strong result here could act as the green light for the party to begin rolling out a more detailed policy plan and tell the nation just how it would do things differently. There have been glimpses here and there of Labour’s plans, fromenergy companies to the NHS. A resounding win on May 3^rd would give Miliband the momentum he needs to really press how Labour would govern in 2015 and beyond.

However, the knives haven’t been sheathed for him, yet, either. A failure to topple the Tories nationwide, and a Livingstone defeat in London, could throw the polling gains tortuously won over the last few weeks out of the window. The press will emphasise that even after all the Coalition’s failings, Labour are still not capable of winning back the people’s trust. Miliband himself will be blamed for failing to articulate a clear message to win back votes, and the vultures will begin circling again. One rumour doing the rounds is that a Labour defeat on May 3^rd will prompt an attempt by disgruntled MPs to push Yvette Cooper forward as Miliband’s successor. Naturally, this is all hearsay and smokescreen. What is certain, however, is that the forthcoming elections will be used by anti-Milibands and pro-Milibands alike to push their own agendas on the leadership.

Will the Council and Mayoral Elections be for Britain what the Midterms are to America- namely, a political gamechanger? Obama has certainly had to change his tune since losing the Senate to the Republicans. Perhaps Cameron will have to obey the more hardline elements in his party in the wake of a defeat. Miliband must also be wary too- a big win will place big expectations on him that he might struggle to fulfil, while a loss will bring the old naysayers out of the woodwork again. For both parties, it’s all to play for.

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

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

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.