Fighting to win

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

Primaries: a secondary solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

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.

Swaziland: More questions than answers

The latest update from Adrian Prandle, Young Fabian International Officer, on the ACTSA delegation to southern Africa.

A busy time in Swaziland saw meetings with the Swaziland National Union of Students, Luvatsi (a youth empowerment organisation), the EU Commission delegation to Swaziland, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Swaziland United Democratic Front (SUDF), as well as a day spent in the field seeing the work of SWAPOL (Swaziland for Positive Living).

It’s hard to take one clear message from such an extensive programme and harder still to reconcile with our own experiences in the UK. The youth organisations face similar challenges to the Young Fabians, such as operating within a tiny budget, yet deal with the much bigger problems of recognition and ability to engage with government and decision-makers.

This is primarily because Swaziland is an undemocratic one party state controlled by the monarch, King Mswati III. His spending is focussed on himself and his coterie rather than addressing the needs of the population. The lack of investment in infrastructure – i.e. school buildings and teachers – is preventing the court-enforced commitment to free primary education from being rolled out with any speed. The SUDF is a coalition of banned political parties, trade unions and civil society organisations fighting for a multi-party system. Whilst passionate for their cause, the SUDF is in its early stages and has much to do to engage with the wider population of Swaziland, let alone be seen by the King as a serious force in curbing his lifestyle and pushing for democracy.

In terms of impact from outside of the country, there is one major stumbling block and a devastating chain that exacerbates it. Swaziland is a middle income country, meaning it is not a high priority for aid and meaning that conditional aid is limited in its effect – ultimately because the King doesn’t rely on this money, so does not feel pressured to change behaviour or spending. Swaziland’s per capita income is going up in tragic circumstances: high HIV/AIDS rates mean Swaziland has a decreasing population, hence the appearance of greater wealth.

Gender was an issue constantly raised over these few days. There is a philosophical debate to be had about moral and cultural relativism, but it is fair to say that there was reasonable consensus at an organisational level from our meetings, that the role of men in sexual relationships had a major impact upon being able to tackle the spread of HIV/AIDS - responsibility, yes, but combined with the culture of polygamy and having multi-concurrent sexual partners. SWAPOL’s work seeks to educate around HIV/AIDS at a community level and promotes and facilitates sustainable projects to enable meaningful living with HIV/AIDS. In a country lacking basic education for all, generational change though is difficult to guarantee.

The theory goes that multi-party democracy would enable a reduction in inequality through fairer distribution of financial resources, particularly aimed at health and education. But there’s a long way to travel – which is perhaps why these Swazi organisations were so keen to meet with us. This peaceful battle is on uncertain ground, notably due to King Mswati’s position in the region. SADC, the South African Development Community, has pretty much failed to stand up to Mswati’s hypocrisy in using his position as chair of SADC’s Troika of the Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation to criticise the state of Madagascan democracy whilst his own country has jailed the leader of PUDEMO, the banned opposition party. The friendship between South African President Jacob Zuma and Mswati does not leave Swazi activists with much confidence that help in their struggle will come across the border any time soon.

Amidst an EU Commission Delegation that appeared to me to be hamstrung or dispassionate about its mission, I leave you with questions rather than answers: How should a responsible international community deal with inequality in a middle income country? And how can we, as British citizens and/or Young Fabian members, highlight the tragedy of a country getting richer whilst its population suffers and dies?

From the past to the future via ‘ubuntu’

Three Young Fabians are currently taking part in a delegation organised by ACTSA to southern Africa. Here Adrian Prandle, International Officer on the Young Fabian Executive, writes about the connection between what has gone and what is coming and an African philosophy.

Constitution Hill in Johannesburg, South Africa, is the coming together of contrasts. From the grim history of the – now closed – prison block to the modern splendour, pride and ambition of the Constitutional Court which opened in 2004.

The personal testimonies of former prisoners were told through a tour of the blocks – Number 4, Old Fort and the Women’s Wing – which had incarcerated Winnie Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and others over the years. The poor conditions and the discriminatory processes felt real and wrong as brave, brave people stood up for what they believed in. Political prisoners were mixed in with serious criminals and racial segregation meant more severe discomfort and treatment.

South Africans are extremely proud of their constitution and the Constitutional Court demonstrates in its architecture the balance between learning from history and looking to the future. What appears at first glance to be a very modern building, in fact incorporates some of the remaining prison structures with the combination of old and new symbolising the importance of learning from the past but moving on optimistically. It’s grandly carved front doors detail the articles of the constitution in the nation’s eleven spoken languages – plus sign language and braille. The constitutional court is for everyone we were told. It is made up of eleven judges, again with reference to the languages, and there is much pride that this includes two judges with disabilities, signifying that no-one is excluded in today’s South Africa.

Talking to young South Africans and Zimbabweans afterwards offered an insight into their passion and innovation in promoting democracy and youth particpation. Some, under the ‘Democracy Begins In Conversation’ vehicle ran Radio Con Hill which sought to facilitate young people’s engagement with, for example, constitutional court judges. They explained the philosophy of ‘ubuntu’ as being about humanity, solidarity and cooperation; about understanding that if you have something then somebody else doesn’t and you should share. The youth leaders offered their disappointment at the occasions in recent history when this spirit of Africanism had not been at the forefront of all their countrymen’s behaviour. Rafael, the young activist from Zimbabwe’s MDC party, expressed his willingness to die for the cause of democracy if that was what President Mugabe had in store for him and his colleagues. But he was optimistic that change was happening one way or another: “We have sown the seeds – one day it will grow.”

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

Stronger together. Big tent. Opportunity for all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Prandle, International Officer, Young Fabian Executive

Additional event this week!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Prandle, International Officer

Investing in people – a view from the Fabian book launch

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

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

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

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

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

Adrian Prandle, International Officer