GUEST POST – Yes we care

Tulip Siddiq and Sam Bacon were 2 of the 80-strong Young Fabian-Labour Staff Network delegation that headed to Ohio in late 2008 for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. In a post originally published on Labour List they argue that young people are interested in a different type of politics, and present the implications for party organisation.

“Oh, they don’t care” – a common claim made about young people. Apparently we’re all apathetic and disengaged from politics. Not true. A lot of us do care. The disconnect is not of young people from issues or from politics – if we take politics in the true sense of the word. The lack of engagement comes from apathy about party politics.

The march against student fees had a record number of young people. Recognising the importance of this to their lives, young people took direct action to make their voices heard. But our political interest stretches beyond self interest. An overwhelming number of young people marched against the Iraq War and in the recent climate change ‘wave’ march. The Million Women Rise march, a woman’s only event, had five thousand women last year – significantly bigger than anything of its kind for decades – and a high proportion of participants were young. Oxfam, Amnesty International and campaigns such as Make Poverty History have young people as their key members.

And it doesn’t stop at marching. Politics plays a part in how young people live their lives. Young people are the predominant customer base of ethical free trade shops. It’s actually quite ‘cool’ to shop and live ethically, to eat fair-trade chocolate, buy make-up that hasn’t been tested on animals, to recycle, to attend concerts that raise awareness about issues…you get the idea.

We know of a young Muslim women’s group in Camden. They meet up weekly to discuss issues such as the growing threat of terrorism, free school meals, misinterpretation of Islam in the media and the bureaucracy associated with claiming housing benefits.

These young women would never attend the Young Labour events that take place in Parliament, or party political events anywhere in the country.. And why? Frankly speaking, Party politics is often viewed as a closed shop. It’s for the elite, by the elite. Often it’s seen as a club just for white, well connected London-based men. The lack of women and BAME MPs doesn’t help to counter this view. The national tone of PMQs (a rugby match anyone?) doesn’t encourage participation from all areas of society either.

Young people don’t see how voting or supporting a political party has any real connection to the issues they care about. And, frankly, we’re awful at explaining it to them. They don’t recognise that the actions they take are, in fact, political actions (to live ethically, engage in direct action, etc) and when repeating the mantra that “young people are all apathetic” we too fail to recognise this.

If we want them to engage in Party politics, we fundamentally need to change the way we ‘do’, ‘sell’ and ‘support’ politics. We need to show how politics affects individual lives. Party politics needs to be shown as a coalition of action, as working towards achieving specific outcomes and harbouring certain values. It can’t just be about ‘the Labour Party’ because a lot of young people don’t care about party loyalty. Unconditional party support is a relic of the past. We need to work harder to show people why we matter, what we can do for them, and what we will allow them to do for us.

Let’s face it – we live in an increasingly individualistic age. We need to clarify that being part of a party doesn’t mean you agree with every single policy. Being part of a flock that blindly follows the leader just doesn’t appeal to young people.

We both volunteered on the Obama campaign. And let us tell you – we need to change the culture of appreciation in British politics. We were inundated with food, drink and gushing praise the entire time. In the UK, it’s not unheard of going to campaign for a Labour MP for hours (in the bitter wind) and not even receiving a small thank you. We have to realise; the days of people doing menial tasks for little personal reward or thanks are over.

There are a lot of opportunities for young people to volunteer, and ‘make a difference’ with organisations will give them real responsibility. 3 hours of putting leaflets through letterboxes just doesn’t compare to being responsible for a shop floor at Oxfam. Time is a precious commodity, and experience is all important, so let’s think carefully about what we offer young people in return for their help.

There’s a lot of work to be done. And with declining party memberships (from all parties), it’s necessary too. But let’s start this work from the powerful realisation: yes, young people care.

How Labour can make EU Policy ‘Back Young Britain’

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t Belize all you read

I met up last night with Kunal Khatri, formerly of the YF Executive Committee, who readers will remember as the excellent organiser and host of our pub quizzes last year. Hard to escape, we discussed the election and the potential impact the outcome could have on our respective day jobs. Amongst other things, we talked a bit about the polls, which have improved in the last couple of weeks in a much more convincing way than the Labour boost towards the end of last year.

I’m pleased with the direction of travel of the national voting intentions. But the point I made to Kunal was that the media are reporting a minimal amount of data from the marginal seats in comparison to these headline figures, coupled with comments about uniform swing and the likely balance of seats in the next parliament. The reality is that Labour can be narrowing the overall gap in intentions but that it could be making little difference to the outcome of the election if those people aren’t living in the right constituencies. My hunch was that were we to see more polling from the key seats, we’d probably find the Tories with a wider gap than the 7/8 per cent that has been accepted right now as roughly the difference nationally. Morale-wise, this close to the election – and given how the parliamentary party in particular has reacted to polls in recent years – it’s perhaps best that we don’t see such polls and stay focused on the task in hand …

However, there are some out there and today I’ve come across an interesting analysis by Anthony Wells for UK Polling Report of Ipsos-MORI’s aggregated data for 2009 (that is, all their polls combined), followed up on by Andrew Sparrow. What we see is the Tories – last year, so not accounting for the recent downturn in their fortunes – having a 5% larger lead (a somewhat formidable 21% lead) in Lab-Con marginals. The swing to the Tories in these seats is greater than the swing in safe Labour seats and quite significantly better than that in safe Tory seats.

In other words, they appear to be winning over voters where it matters. There’s one reason for that: a certain Lord Ashcroft. Which is why it’s so important his personal tax situation is clarified.

The lesson is that we mustn’t get complacent about the direction of travel and about the electoral system working in our favour. And we mustn’t stop the fight.

UPDATE: I forgot to include a link to some recent ICM polling of marginals for the News of the World.

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

The BNP – closer than we think?

The news that Nick Griffin (infamous leader of the British National Party, UK MEP for the North-West and now parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Barking) will be part of the European Parliament delegation to Copenhagen will no doubt have further knocked the public’s faith in European institutions.

Nick is not the greatest believer climate change, in fact he has regularly calls it:

“…a global Marxist mantra that is going to be used to beat people around the head, tax us to the hilt, smash nations and impose a one-world government.”

So his attendance at the summit is an unwelcome distraction and is unlikely to be of any help to the UK’s efforts to reach a deal in Copenhagen. Only Griffin will benefit from his attendance as the BNP draws out more political notoriety from the event.

More than embarrasing, BNP’s new spin on the European stage this week is another worrying sign of the rise of the BNP. Their appearance on Question Time last October caused uproar but most are resigned to the fact that it is unlikely to be the last time we see them on our TV screens.

So are we just getting used to the BNP?

The results of the European Elections earlier this year with their two seats gain, their Greater London Assembly seat last year and  57 local BNP councillors across the country, all point to a growing belief amongst some quarters of society that they are a legitimate political force.

So the question is “does the left have any plan that can stop the BNP?”.

Last week members of London Young Labour met to debate the ‘No Platform’ policy against the BNP, the mainstay of the left’s strategy to deal with the far right. Yet it has not beaten back the BNP. Putting aside the deomcratic questions of free speech, they lack of media coverage is not stopping them out there in the streets. In the debate Frank Dobson talked about John Smith asking lead a campaign to deal with the BNP council threat in Millwall in the mid 90s.

The Prime Minister has not done anything similar, although politicians like John Cruddas have made fighting the BNP a personal political aim. In the wider movement organisations like Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism have done sterling work creating campaigns like Hope Not Hate and Love Music Hate Racism to raise awareness and mobilizing support against the BNP.  Now more than ever they need our help.

But with the Labour Party focused on understanding the needs of working class communities, worried by reports that BNP supporters are actually old Labour voters who don’t see the party as relevant to them anymore, it is unclear what the overall strategy really is.  If the Party is serious about breaking the stranglehold of the BNP they may yet have to show that they can take a proper fight to them, as well as woo their followers back to proper mainstream Labour values.

Vincenzo

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.

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.