Right stupidity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lib Dem conference and Coalition Government: who’s dragging who round the circus?

Years of ignoring the Lib Dems’ conferences are at an end, the Left should be careful to read the signs in Liverpool and the public’s reaction closely.

By the time you read this Nick Clegg will have made his pitch to the Liberal Democrat faithful that their Coalition with the Conservatives is “the right government for right now”. With the polls where they are, this message is going to be a tough sell and whether it convinces either his party’s faithful or the public is something only time will tell.

Poor Nick’s got a difficult balancing act: reaching out to the public without completely trampling over his party. Clegg has to convince his party that that he hasn’t gone native in Mr Cameron’s company.

Many will have thought that Coalition Government would be about Conservatives instigating policies and Liberal Democrats holding back the nastier Tory tendencies but the reality is proving more complex.

Over the weekend senior Liberal Democrat figures were actively trying to paint their party’s role in Government, behind closed doors at least, as being about ensuring the Lib Dem’s distinctive signature on every policy this Government puts through. On the BBC this weekend Simon Hughes was keen to make sure people understood that “ …there are lots of times when Nick will say ‘No, not now, or not this way’…or they’ll [Lib Dem ministers] be saying we need to go further, faster or differently”. I’m not sure whose fears that is supposed to allay. Its cold comfort for party members already uncomfortable on a whole raft of issues, already the word ‘dictatorship’ is being bandied around by the grassroots.

When you add public opinion that they don’t like large strands of Government policy, the question emerges: is it Cameron’s lot to blame or Clegg’s?

So far the Conservatives seem to be happy to acquiesce Clegg’s political muscle flexing but the future post-conference, especially the post-coalition agreement, looks stormier than ever. Already Saint Vince’s comments on the migrant cap have put him at odds with Teresa May, whilst Evan Harris has decided to put some distance between the ‘progressive wing’ of the Lib Dems and Clegg (though that distinction should probably have been made clearer to Lib Dem voters).

The Lib Dems are now tarred with very cut, every policy, and all the rhetoric of this Coalition Government. Why shouldn’t Labour cover them with feathers call them what they seem to be?

This puts a little pressure on Labour as it journeys up to Manchester. Thousands of new Labour members are actually Lib Dem voters angry at being sold a duff political project and by the end of this conference there are likely to be many more of them ready to  follow their lead.

But it is a very different scenario if uneasy Lib Dems MPs and councillors are, after a week in Liverpool, pushed/shoved/encouraged to search for a more comfortable political home.  What will Labour be ready, or able, to offer them?

After New, what’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A single issue voter

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

The Fabian Leadership Hustings: a campaigner’s view

Here Young Fabian member and campaigner Ben Knight gives his views on the Fabian leadership hustings earlier this week.

This made it the third leadership debate I’ve seen in 4 days, and far from being a case of 5 people in auto-pilot, it was a lively and engaging debate.

Overall, I am greatly enthused about the future of Labour, both as an effective opposition and as a future government. David Miliband, in his opening remarks, said that it was now time to move beyond the era of Blair/Brown and this is something that needs to be hammered home – provided that lessons are learned of course.

Something that really set this evening apart from previous debates was a question about the candidate’s regrets. The candidates were asked ‘Which are the three most important issues on which you disagreed with the Government since 1997?’ Quite rightly, Iraq was the most common response. Diane Abott and Ed Miliband are making sure that their opposition to the war is well known, and I think that being able to say that they opposed such a devastating and unpopular war will help avoid future pain on this issue.

I was somewhat disappointed that Ed Balls expressed concern over the ‘loss of trust’ Iraq led to, rather than the loss of life – for both sides. Whilst he is certainly right to make his point, I think perhaps a sense of perspective is needed. In order to go forward, the mistakes of the past must be openly and honestly debated.

Staying with the theme of regrets, Ed Miliband was the only candidate to mention not being tough enough on the banks. I would have hoped that this would be something of a pressing concern for all five candidates, given that the coalition is trying to rebuild the old system as it was, rather than dare try a new model.

I was also impressed with Ed Miliband’s proposals for a high pay commission and his campaign for a living wage; they are both great causes worthy of support and I hope to see them come to fruition soon. With only days before the first budget of Coalition, it is imperative that banking reform is kept at the top of the agenda, and that Labour continues to be the voice of those least able to speak up for themselves.

I felt that the evening gave a good sign of things to come and that regardless of the eventual victor there are some dead certs for Labour’s future. Firstly – electoral reform. All candidates made arguments in favour of the Alternative Vote, as it requires any successful candidate to be elected with a majority of the vote, and it retains the crucial constituency link between voters and MP.

Secondly, there is a lot of support for Harriet Harman’s proposal of appointing women to 50% of shadow cabinet posts. The candidates argued this was needed in order to change the male-centric culture of Westminster, which at present poses a barrier to female entry and success in politics.

For me, the most salient point of the night was made by Andy Burnham, who seemed far less nervous tonight then when I first saw him speak. As the other candidates debated the pros and cons of AV versus PR, votes at 16 and House of Lords reform, Burnham reminded them that to a vast majority of people these issues are simply not the most important right now.

As unemployment is predicted to go up, welfare is reduced and harder to get, and with the government seemingly taking abject glee in watching it all unfold, Andy Burnham has delivered a sobering message to us all. It is imperative that Labour is vocal, organised and united so that it may once again offer an alternative vision – and offer hope – to the people of Britain that Mr Cameron and Clegg’s ‘new politics’ neglects to be concerned for.

Burnham backs Young Fabian pamphlet at last night’s hustings

Lots of interest in Young Fabian activity plus the signing up of new members at our exhibition stand; a sell-out crowd; and the adoption by one of the Labour leadership candidates of policy from the international chapter of the YF publication, Fast Forward (more of that later), all made for a successful evening.

It was a good hustings – audience members like myself who had been at Saturday’s event in the same venue were treated to some different content as well as some of the same words, ideas and pitches – and in my opinion each of the candidates improved upon Saturday. What was particularly positive was the honest, comradely, and occasionally humourous spirit in which the candidates approached the discussion. Long may that continue.

Amongst the same content as Saturday was a discussion of electoral reform. It’s amusing to see how far this issue appears to have turned around over the course of 2010. From the advocacy of PR (in whatever form) seeming to be a near-consensus of the left just a few months ago, we now find ourselves with all five of our leadership candidates fairly (small c) conservative on the issue and against such a move. I lean towards the argument of one of the contenders that this is not something that most of the country cares deeply and worries about, but from all I have read online this year it seems a clear difference between party membership and leadership. Maybe that’s just because those who favour FPTP or, to a lesser extent, AV, have just been more quiet. I know I have.

There’s a very fine balance to be had with regards to taking on board party members’ views and providing leadership which may differ. It’s a challenge they all face during this campaign and one to watch closely. But it’s also a reason why those candidates advocating and elaborating on the ideal of party reform, in particular around policy formation, will likely win votes.

In terms of new content it was pleasing to see the impact of the conversation that I, and a couple of executive committee colleagues, had with Andy Burnham on Saturday at the Compass conference, when Andy came to say hello at our exhibition stand. Andy left with a copy of Fast Forward, the pamphlet which was a product of 2009′s YF policy forums and tonight backed the call within the edited volume’s foreign policy chapter for an agreed framework for interventionism.

The successor programme of work – the 2010 YF Policy Development Groups – which I am managing, is underway and Young Fabian members are now taking part in meetings to develop new ideas under four themes. Check our website for more, it’s being constantly updated, and I promise to post here again on the groups  soon. It’s not too late to join any of them if you want to play a part and take your ideas to the highest reaches of the party.

Adrian Prandle

Vice Chair, Young Fabians

You can be too nice…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am undecided as to who to support. Genuinely.

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