The ‘Invisible Link’

The connection between rioting and economic deprivation must be recognised by a government and public venting its fury in all the wrong directions.

The chaos and wanton destruction of the past week has provoked a new bout of soul-searching within Britain. In the race to identify the origins of the rot that spread out to consume an alarming number of our communities, politicians, broadcasters, journalists, and British citizens have scrutinised the social fabric of the nation and unearthed a rich variety of possible answers. The public can already choose from a range of conceptual lenses through which they can interpret the acts of rioting, looting and murder that have so shaken the national psyche. It is tempting for the politically conscious to grasp at the interpretation that best accords with their stance on the political spectrum to the exclusion of all others, and understand the rioting through the distortions of their personal ideological prisms.

There are many who have already taken this course of action, and are lashing out in screen and print with their own half-formed ideas on the cause of the rioting. The Daily Mail published Melanie Philips’ decidedly right-wing analysis of the riots, attributing “the violent anarchy” of the last several days to “the three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.” On the other end of the spectrum, Nina Power has projected the London riots as the inevitable manifestation of an unequal society where “the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country”.

In a previous post, Alex evaluated the riots as an economic equation balancing costs and benefits. Labour and their supporters have spouted dozens of statistics in a bid to prove a link exists between economic instability with social disorder. Such analysis may appear cold, sterile and unappealing to the passions of many who want to brand those responsible as “scum”, “feral”, and “evil” in order to vent their understandable frustration. But it has to be recognized, it must be understood that there is a real, tangible link between economic permutations and social unrest.

It also has to be made brilliantly clear that there is a link between personal economic success and psychological resilience. I have discussed the correlation between unemployment and mental health in a previous article, but still many will state that an individual’s employment status is detached from their internal moral compass. The real link must be made more explicit.

Why does a certain individual see a discarded brick, pick it and throw it through a window, while another walks on by? Why does one teenager loot while another, who has the same ability to take what he wants and the knowledge that no-one will stop him, attempt to prevent him?

The answer lies in the individual’s psychological make-up, and the temperament of the invisible policeman of his conscience. However it can never, never be said that the mental state of any individual is constructed in a vacuum. The argument that the environment an individual grows in shapes his character is termed ‘behaviourism’, and is studied as a branch of moral philosophy. It has featured many times as part of discussions on incidences of supposed moral disintegration, perhaps most recently in Britain with the 1993 murder of Jamie Bulger, when Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair said: “We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportions… These are the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name.”

Would those words being any less aptly used today?

Were the riots a product of moral disintegration in some sections of our community? Yes – and the right is quick to acknowledge this. What it fails to do, and what the left must impress upon the public, is that this moral disintegration occurred in community environments that bred contempt, hate, and anger, and that these environments have been allowed to flourish because of institutional failures that neither Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron have successfully addressed.

The depressed communities of Tottenham, Hackney, Birmingham, Salford and elsewhere have been failed by both left and right. They have been cut-off and isolated from the rest of society just as the rich and powerful have cloistered themselves away in opulent London enclaves.

The Prime Minister has been careful with his choice of language over the last couple of weeks, but I applaud him for acknowledging that this is still “our” society, thereby implicating all peoples and classes in the shame that has engulfed our country. As he stated in the Commons, “There are pockets of our society that are not only broken, but frankly sick”.

When one part of the body falls ill, the rest will soon follow unless immediate action is taken. That action cannot be isolated to condemnation, imprisonment, punishment and further deprivation. To do so would be to poison these environments further, and conjure up an even greater storm a decade down the line.

Instead, the link between deprivation and disruption needs to be made more explicit than ever, and severed once and for all.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabian Blog.

Guest post: The British prime ministership and the Murdoch press since 1997

In this guest post, Dr. Nicholas Allen examines the influence of the Murdoch press on British prime ministers since 1997.

Rupert Murdoch’s appearance before the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee on 17 July was a riveting affair. It was, he said, ‘the most humble day of my life’. It was also a day when the public learned that Murdoch had often entered Number 10 through the back door when visiting—because he had been asked to by its occupants. The question that prompted that admission was indicative of the concern felt by many about Murdoch’s relationships with successive prime ministers. His access to Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron and their attempts to curry his newspapers’ favour have been portrayed in some quarters as evidence of excessive influence. Confirmation of his back-door comings and goings only added to the sense of his behind-the-scenes power in British public life.

The reality is probably somewhat different. No-one can deny the importance of news management to the prime ministership. As head of government, the prime minister is ultimately responsible for selling the record of his or her government to the voters and ensuring a supportive press. Blair must have been thoroughly grateful for the Sun and The Times’ support for the invasion of Iraq, for instance. Yet, at the same time, prime ministers need to be mindful of what all newspapers are saying- especially in the run-up to an election. Press coverage in the round also matters to prime ministers on a more personal level. The tenor of press coverage will affect his or her prestige and standing in the eyes of senior colleagues.

It almost goes without saying that the importance of press coverage in general undermines the importance of one man’s newspapers. The Murdoch press operates in a competitive market, and their influence on public opinion is limited. Prime ministers and their advisers almost certainly know this. Of course, some newspapers matter more than others. Murdoch’s newspapers are especially important in British politics because of their high circulation figures and because of their unpredictability. Titles whose political support can be taken for granted may find themselves taken for granted by prime ministers. Titles whose support is shallow or conditional will almost inevitably be treated differently. The Times and especially the Sun enjoy large readerships, and they have shown themselves to be conditional in their support for political parties. It is not surprising that they have been courted.

The Sun, in particular, has a near-mythical status in British politics. There is little evidence to support the claim that it was the Sun ‘wot won it’ for the Tories in 1992, yet many politicians still regard the Sun’s endorsement as a necessary step on the path to power. In July 1995, Tony Blair took the bold move for a Labour leader to travel to Australia to deliver a speech to News Corp executives. Reflecting on the trip in his memoirs, Blair wryly observes:

‘the country’s most powerful newspaper proprietor, whose publications have hitherto been rancorous in their opposition to the Labour Party, invites us into the lion’s den. You go, don’t you?’

Brown for his part was reportedly determined to have the backing of the Murdoch press when he succeeded Blair, and Cameron must have been delighted to obtain the Sun’s backing in 2009 (not that it won him a majority in 2010). In all cases, however, there is no evidence that policies were radically altered contrary to a prime minister’s preferences out of consideration for the Murdoch press.

Moreover, while Blair’s trip to Australia was the most memorable effort of any British party leader to woo a newspaper proprietor, both he and his successors have assiduously courted other newspaper owners and editors. Blair was determined to win over as much of the right-wing press as possible; he read a lesson at the funeral of Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Mail, and he invited Richard Desmond, owner of the Express, to tea. Gordon Brown and David Cameron have also continued the tradition of meeting owners and editors of various newspapers when they can. In this sense the friendliness shown towards the Murdoch press is hardly exceptional. (The fact that no prime minister enjoys the unconditional support of a newspaper might be taken as evidence that the effort expended is never worth the outcome.)

In truth, concerns about Murdoch’s and his newspapers’ hold on the prime ministership are wide of the mark. Amongst proprietors, Murdoch does not enjoy an exclusive access to Number 10, and all newspapers are, to varying degrees, wooed by the prime minister and his advisers. Instead, such concerns probably have more to do with Murdoch’s ‘bogeyman’ reputation, especially among those on the left, than with his actual power.

His newspapers have not, by themselves, empowered or disempowered the British prime ministership. Recent events have also shown his own power to be somewhat more illusory than many once supposed.

Dr. Nicholas Allen is Lecturer in Politics at the Royal Holloway University of London

The road ahead…?

Despite the huge statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister this evening, the reality is that a deal with the Liberal Democrats still has to be made. It’s obvious that Gordon Brown’s future as PM has been removed as a perceived ‘road block’ but what will form the basis of that coalition beyond the foundations of economic stability, electoral reform and deficit reduction is still up for grabs.

A stable, strong and principled Government has been the watch words across the commentary and coverage, providing a blueprint of where we want our politics to be. The coalition may give us none of this.  Coalitions are precarious and there are more questions left about the future than answered.

But despite all his ‘image’ problems, Gordon Brown has managed to stay above the fray and come over as a Statesman and a leader. And now, according to the FT, his decisive move means it’s ‘game on’. That puts pressure on Nick Clegg who has been allowed to flitter between suitors for longer than principles should have allowed.

The PM has set down a marker, he’s set out a timetable that will work towards stability in coalition and lead Labour to a newly-elected leader. But it also opens up the possibility about wider and deeper discussions about the direction of our movement.

As others have highlighted, a leadership election in the party will necessitate a longer, harder look at the party as a whole. Both the Next Left conference and the  Compass’ conference over these coming months will need to revive and rejuvenate the direct of our political project. Whilst these turbulent times offers a chance for our own Young Fabian Policy Development groups to inject new ideas and thinking the youth of the movement.

So, yeah, this is an intensely exciting and important time, where the left could – perhaps – come together to change British politics for ever. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: can a deal be reached?

And you thought the excitement was all over….

Join us for the second Leaders’ debate

Tonight we are hosting another live event in London where the second Leaders’ debate will be shown on a big-screen. The event is in conjunction with LabourList, Progress, Compass, and LGBT Labour, and will take place in the Old Crown (33 New Oxford Street, London, WC1A 1BH) from 7pm till late.

If you can’t make the event then you can still share your views on the leaders debate by joining the Live Chat hosted on this site below run by our friends at Left Foot Forward. The Live Chat starts at 7.30pm.

Executive members David Chaplin and Vincenzo Rampulla will be live-Tweeting the event. Their tweets will feature in the live chat, or you can follow them by adding @chaplindavid and @vmrampulla to your follow list on Twitter.

Labour kicks off the Manifesto race

I don’t know about you but elections always seem more real when the manifestos are published. This week we’ll finally get a chance to see the concrete pledges that each of the parties are staking their political futures on.

Labour has been first out of the gate with today’s manifesto launch in Birmingham. Labour had decided to have well known Labour blogger and supporter Ellie Gellard (a.k.a @Bevaniteellie) introduce the event by telling people about the series of short cartoons that had been created to spread the word about Labour’s manifesto.

It’s good to see Labour catering for busy people who want to get a sense of what Labour’s offering without having to read the full 76 page manifesto.

Although we’ve seen party political broadcasts before, Labour launched theirs very recently:

The idea of explaining and sharing policies through videos which people can pass on to their friends and family is actually quite nifty and certainly means the party is serious about making this election all about ‘word of mouth‘.

Still, if people do take a moment to browse the manifesto proper they’ll see a range of policies looking to tackle the big issues that still face our society:

• Banking and Financial Services: A People’s Bank at the Post Office; a Universal Service Obligation on banks to serve every community; a clampdown on interest rates for doorstep and payday loans.
• Cancer care: Legally binding guarantees for patients including the right to cancer test results within one week of referral, and a maximum 18 weeks’ wait for treatment or the offer of going private.
• Parental work life balance: More help for parents to balance work and family life, with a ‘Father’s Month’ of flexible paid leave.
• Democratic reform: Referenda, held on the same day, for moving 41. to the Alternative Vote for elections to the House of Commons and to a democratic and accountable Second Chamber.

Pledge Card Launches #labpledge

Labour should build on trade, Europe and a revised interventionism for a fairer world

This article was originally published here for Progress on the 15th January 2010.

A Labour campaign on foreign policy should argue that the values which define our party should also define our international agenda. Values of internationalism, a global solidarity with those in greatest need, and the need to protect those who are vulnerable and suffering are traditional Labour values which we apply at home and should apply abroad. These are the cornerstone of our movement. They define our approach to all policy areas and separate us from our opponents.

We should focus on three key aspects in Labour foreign policy campaigns. Firstly, we should continue to use foreign policy as a vehicle for economic growth within our nation and beyond our borders. Secondly, we should commit to drawing up a new doctrine for intervention and, thirdly, we should not being afraid of leading in Europe and in other international institutions.

To take the first strand, Britain is a trading nation and needs access to the wider European market. As we move from recession to recovery our agenda for growth will require continued access to the global market to secure jobs and prosperity at home.

In the second instance, there is a need to reassess how and when interventionism occurs, and place it in a consistent framework. This should be founded on a clear relationship between morality and the rule of law. Interventionism cannot be founded upon hubris, neocolonial ambition or economic aspiration. The burden of intervention must also be carried by those who can share it, using international action for military and humanitarian causes.

And lastly, a key component of Labour’s international policy has been to recognise that the EU is more than just a market to trade with and should be used to strengthen Britain’s role in the world. However, there is a need to settle the economic argument that EU membership costs Britain more than we get in return. We must also defeat the political argument that pooling our strength leaves us weaker rather than stronger. In this international context Labour should continue to argue for reform of our global institutions such as the IMF and World Bank in order to secure a stronger system for global economics and build a more equal world.

British voters stand much to lose if a Tory government were to represent Britain in Europe again. Many of today’s Tories are obsessed by ‘process Europe’ and rarely by ‘policy Europe.’ We understand that Britain is strongest at the heart of Europe.

Labour has shown strong influence on the international stage. Those who want to tackle our energy and climate policies, to forge a fair way out of the economic crisis, to protect us from threats of terrorism, to continue to build a European economic area of shared prosperity and stable growth, and promote a positive agenda for the developing world know that Labour has delivered and will continue to do so.

The Tories meanwhile are isolated, alienated and on the wrong side of the argument. Hague’s liberal Conservative approach would result in a disastrous marriage of isolationism and inaction, a policy that leaves Britain vulnerable and alone, and the world a less fair place.

Labour recognises that the world has changed since the fall of the empires. It is Labour that understands that to achieve for one nation you have to work with others. Labour’s foreign policy is an agenda for a better Britain and a fairer world and that’s a cause well worth fighting for.

This is an abridged version of the international policy chapter from the Young Fabian report ‘Fast forward: The next generation of progressive politics’

Brian Duggan and Marie Loewe are, respectively, international officer and equalities officer of the Young Fabians

It is the fighters and believers …

Stage one accomplished.

During its annual conference in Brighton this week, the Labour Party and Gordon Brown needed to show that it was prepared to make its case and really go all guns blazing to win this general election – not for itself but for the millions of Britons who need a Labour Government. Gordon Brown, his colleagues and his party members have shown that they are. The next step is to go out there and do it. Easier said than done – but it really can be done.

Brown was successful in talking to his party. Reactions in the hall to the first few minutes of the speech in particular demonstrated the passion and support the Labour Party has in it and that Brown can invoke. What will emerge in the coming hours and days will be how successful he has been in talking to the country.

The speech was strong on Labour priorities – more money, not less, for schools in the coming years; the National Care Service; and guaranteeing rises in the minimum wage, tax credits and child benefit for five years. The devil will be in the detail on internships as it’s a tricky area but this has the potential to be great for ensuring opportunity is not solely the preserve of the middle classes and for raising aspiration and opening up new worlds of possibility. His words on the NHS were split, with the longer, later section likely to resonate stronger outside the activist base. The big surprise was the announcement on electoral reform (I’ll write another time on why this isn’t for me, however).

When members of the Young Fabian executive met with David Miliband earlier in the week, I was clear that I thought the party needed to absolutely hammer Cameron and his party for the next 8 months and go gung ho at his decision-making and the very apparent link over the past twelve months to traditional Tory small-state ideology. Much, much stronger attack. Where Brown’s speech talked about the Tories, it dealt with them well – I especially liked the bit on cuts: “These are not cuts they would make because they have to – these are spending cuts they are making because they want to.” – but the attack needed to be better threaded throughout the whole of the speech to mak the kind of impact needed. As PM, it’s difficult for Brown to lay-in to the opposition to such a large extent aside from big party occasions like this.  In July 2008, James Purnell did a set-piece speech for Progress, focussed entirely on attacking Cameron’s Tories. Gordon Brown needs to do similar, and soon. Progress may well provide the opportunity again, as they normally stage their annual conference in the months between summer and Christmas.

So, stage two now is to ignore the flak for ‘dividing lines’ and make the threat of a Tory government clear. And then don’t relent in painting a picture of how people will see their change cement itself in our communities and public institutions.

Stage three? Armed with the policy and the politics, is to get the party moving again. Invoke the passion and determination that party members have and reignite the fight and the belief. There’s some organisational work to be done - as the YF delegation to Obama’s campaign, almost a year ago now, found out.

Two thoughts on whether Brown succeeded in speaking to Britain today. I watched the speech outside the conference hall in the exhibition area. Towards the end I was told by a (non-affiliated) union activist that her and her friend, with a combined age of over 100, had never voted Labour before but that after this speech they may well do so – they felt they ‘get it’ now.

It would be naive to assume though that most of the population will judge the speech in such an undiluted way – the media reaction is obviously important. I started writing this post immediately after the speech, returning to it later, and as I am finishing it the clock has ticked over into Wednesday. We can not underestimate the significance of today’s front page splash in The Sun. Though long-predicted, what a shame this pre-determined position did not give Brown’s speech a chance. If this disjunct between the conference oratory and the printed coverage doesn’t rile Labour activists into action, nothing will.

The politics of loyalty (and investing in hope)

Young Fabian International Officer, Adrian Prandle, looks at the democratic struggle in Zimbabwe on the ACTSA youth delegation to southern Africa.

Meeting with Munjodzi Mutandiri, an activist in the MDC who works at the Johannesburg desk of the NCA, a pressure group  fighting for a democratic constitution in Zimbabwe, and Chiedza Gadzirayi, International Relations Secretary of ZINASU, the Zimbabwe National Students Union, gave an enlightening insight into the state of affairs in Zimbabwe since Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC entered the government.

Loyalty to political leadership is a fascinating topic (this isn’t going to be about Gordon Brown and his Cabinet by the way). There were some very direct parallels between the attitudes of these two passionate young Zimbabweans and those in Labour’s youth movements here – Young Fabians included. Though of course fighting our campaigns in the UK doesn’t result in you being a political prisoner in jails unchanged since the colonial 70s, sharing space with real criminals, as Chiedza had devastatingly experienced. Does loyalty to leaders, structures and hierarchies, and the institution itself (Labour and the MDC in this case) help young people in getting their views on the agenda? Or does it simply merge them into the status quo, stymieing their healthy radicalism and innovation? Does such loyalty help or hinder political careers? And at what stage should young people have the confidence to stand up and say this isn’t working?

In terms of the Labour movement in the UK, perhaps the least contentious question to deal with is that of political careers. This is a generalisation, but I think it is fair to say that within Labour’s youth movements, loyalty to leadership and policy is more likely to get you up and running, and as such is practised more than it is rejected.

I have no reason to think that the views of Chiedza and Munjodzi were career-oriented and every reason to think they were passionate for their cause(s). However, something is causing a difficult contradiction in the story they tell of Zimbabwe in 2009.

It’s a story of ZINASU’s relationship with the MDC – for whom they had actively campaigned – breaking down as the MDC became effectively a ruling party and the subsequent vacuum in ZINASU’s position on the party and the new government. As they make little ground in their campaign for the reinstatement of students expelled from university for political reasons and their push for measures that will lead to the reopening of the 29 of Zimbabwe’s universities (about two thirds of the total) that are closed, Chiedza tells of a ‘relationship really turned sour’ with the MDC.

The Education ministry is one still controlled by a ZANU PF minister reluctant to engage. And there is understanding but frustration that Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s hands are basically tied with no money in the economy and Robert Mugabe retaining greater power and a bullying approach to the new members of the government. But at the same time, relationships with civil society are already ‘very strained’, says Munjodzi. There are criticisms that Tsvangirai is betraying certain values and showing too much willing to defend Mugabe. Despite a background in the unions and in campaigning on constitutional reform, he is not living up to expectations.

Nevertheless, both comrades were clear that they still had confidence in Morgan Tsvangirai as leader of the democratic cause and a firm belief that MDC Congress would vote him out of office if it came to the point where such action was necessary.

I’m less sure. But when your struggle has got this far, it is no surprise that an investment in hope finds its way to the forefront and the question of when to stand up and say ‘this isn’t working’ is left for another day.

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