Organising for success

Post-conference and with a new leader, Labour has a chance to start building. But it must seize the opportunity, bring together what has already been achieved and learn from choices made by others.

Back in 2008 when the Young Fabians came back from Ohio, having played our part in getting Barack Obama elected as President of the United States of America, our hopes were high that the same scale of political engagement we had seen in the US could be generated in the UK. Through outlets like the Young Fabians events, Progress-organised CLP meetings and on blogs like Labourlist, we actively sought to spread the word about what we had seen and what could be achieved.

Let’s ‘AVe more important debates

Am I alone in hoping that the early months of Labour’s new leadership is not dominated by the upcoming referendum on electoral reform?

I don’t agree with much of Anthony Painter’s blog yesterday on this campaign, but I do agree with the comment he supplemented it with which suggested that it’s not going to split the Coalition. I think there’ll be much bigger fracture points both before and after, but more significantly believe that the electoral reform debate threatens to distract from the damage ideological cuts will be making to people’s lives. The new leader, whilst building a fresh and credible policy platform, must focus on what matters. And to the people suffering most from the change in government, the electoral system isn’t going to be top of their lists.

It’s interesting that the centrepiece of Anthony’s post is the case for making the ‘yes’ campaign a ‘no’ campaign on first past the post. It strikes me that this is because there is actually very little to be said in favour of the alternative vote. It isn’t PR, just simply FPTP with the an added platitude. The belief that having the ‘support’ (often by default and through reluctantly reassigned votes) of 50% of those who vote (not 50% of the potential electorate) in a constituency will somehow instantly change politics or MPs’ behaviour is without substance. First it unfairly burdens the majority of parliamentarians with the characteristics of the worst. And second, it assumes that needing a few more votes provides enough of a tipping point to shift the complacency he describes. Why would it?

The big strengths in FPTP are actually best contrasted with PR systems (genuine, effective single member constituencies for the whole of the house; and consequently – particularly with a recall mechanism – real lines of accountability between public and politician) so to say, as Anthony does, that there are only two arguments for FPTP is slightly disingenuous. Of course the contrast for the coming months though is with AV not PR.

The first of Anthony’s two straw men, that FPTP delivers clear outcomes, is, as above, relevant to a comparison with PR more than AV, which would achieve likewise. The second, the propensity of maverick politicians is not necessarily one I’d make.

I would argue, however, that the case for change has to justify the inevitable expense and disruption; the similarities between FPTP and AV are such that this is questionable. There’s not a long list of things ‘wrong’ with AV, 50% is no bad thing – but it’s not the magic bullet its proponents suggest. Rather it is anodyne. But that doesn’t present a strong argument for amending our electoral system.

Anthony omits the simplicity defence of FPTP. I personally think it’s an important one. I don’t for one minute buy the counter-argument that to say other electoral systems are complex is somehow patronising to the public at large and that such views deserve to stay in the Westminster village. Complexity is a genuine concern. As Vice Chair of the Young Fabians I may be said to be part of a Westminster village accused of looking down on the wider population, but my own recent experience is worth highlighting. I am afforded the rare luxury of being an undecided voter in the leadership election. I understand how AV works and am certain to vote. Yet the iterations of how I will vote have been rattling through my head for months now. Do I place 5 ranked votes? Do I just vote for the three I’d be comfortable with as leader? Do I vote my likely second or third preferred leader number one so as to ensure they help take out early another candidate I don’t want to be in the final two or three? Possibilities are endless …

If turnout drops as a result of a change to the electoral system then we’re left with the perversity of MPs being elected with a greater share of the vote (50+%) but, potentially, less actual votes from their constituents. Is that desirable?

Given all the talk of PR in the months leading to the general election, I was interested to see very early on that all five of Labour’s leadership candidates were openly (small c) conservative on electoral reform when not long before it had seemed an unstoppable bandwagon in party circles. I’m not going to be a passionate defender of FPTP, and I would not be unhappy with AV, but I won’t be jumping on the bandwagon of change for change’s sake or as a solution to a problem of which the electoral system was not a cause. I just don’t think it’s where the radical centre-left should be expending its energy.

Young Fabians nationwide participating in new policy development

Building upon the success of 2009’s YF Policy Forums, Young Fabian Vice Chair, Adrian Prandle, established four new Policy Development Groups to answer some of the key questions the centre-left needs to address in order to retool following Labour’s general election defeat. 

If the Fabian Society is about ideas, and the Young Fabians is about the next generation, then the YF Policy Development Groups (PDGs) are about realising that there is no time to waste. The context of a Conservative-led government and the first competitive Labour leadership election since today’s oldest Young Fabian members were at school offers a huge opportunity for centre-left ideas on domestic policy, Britain’s policy abroad, and even the way the Labour Party organises and presents itself.

The four groups – Livelihoods & Resource Security (looking at development and foreign policy); Work & Families; Aspiration & Equality (focusing on education policy); and a special project group, Transforming Our Party – have Young Fabian members, with a range of interests, expertises and experiences,  signed up in their hundreds.

The PDGs are seeking new policy ideas with the aim of developing these collectively to inform decision-makers and senior party figures as well as other Young Fabian and/or Labour Party members. Published outcomes from the PDGs predecessor in 2009 have been cited from the top table at leadership hustings and 2010’s work promises to be just as important and influential.

But they’re not just about influence. The strength of the PDGs lies within our membership. Recognising the need to harness the talents of all of our members, we have redoubled efforts to involve and empower and have utilised web-based resources to make this easier for Young Fabians across the country. Members have been encouraged to participate by email, blogging, joining a Facebook group, and accessing the many resources in the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website, as well as attending meetings in person.

And the PDGs have hosted a first for the Young Fabians – online meetings. We’re not using webcams just yet, but members are finding the chatroom software both productive and easy to use. Plus the work of the groups benefits: the breaking of geographic boundaries brings in wider perspectives from the length and breadth of Britain than meetings in London often allow.

We are looking into using wikis for policy development and remain open to other ideas members want to suggest. Young Fabians are getting involved in whichever ways suit them best – members in Manchester have organised their own meeting to feed into the discussions of the Transforming Our Party PDG.

The PDGs will report later in the year so it’s not too late to join in. If you’d like to participate in any one of the PDGs, or would like to find out more about their latest work then please email Adrian, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk, or visit the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website: http://tiny.cc/yfpdgs.

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.

A vision for our future: Why I’m Backing David Miliband

Unlike most of MPs who nominated David Miliband for the leadership of the Labour Party this week, I haven’t worked with him, I haven’t chatted with him in the division lobby, or on the benches in House.

Unlike the journalists who try to un-pick the Labour leadership contest, I’m not looking for a juicy story, I’m not interested in his choice of tie colour, or how he’s getting on with his brother.

I’ve been watching this leadership race develop like every other Party member. I’ve met some of the candidates on the campaign trail in London during the election; I’ve seen them on TV and I’ve read their articles in the press.

Now that the final list of candidates is clear, I’m also clear on who I want to support, who I want to win and why.

I’m a life-long Labour Party member and I want our new leader to be the next Prime Minister.

I want to support a candidate who has demonstrated their credentials for that job and who is up for the challenge of taking on David Cameron and Nick Clegg from the day he or she is elected.

As a normal party activist I want a new leader who will be proud of the record that our party has in government, particularly the advances made under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown since 1997.

I don’t want a leader who is going to trash that record. I don’t want a leader who is going to exploit disagreements within our movement. And I don’t want a leader who wants to step back from the difficult decisions we need to take.

I want a leader who can talk openly about our disagreements and who can confidently acknowledge our mistakes, but who will also move our Party forward together and learn from where we went wrong.

Our Party needs reforming, from top to bottom. We need to re-think the way we recruit members and how we organise ourselves in our local communities. We need a new and more open approach to discussing policy that is inclusive and transparent. We should be cutting-edge and dynamic in our local and national campaigns. We need a leader who wants the Labour Party to change and is willing and able to drive that.

I want a Labour Prime Minister who understands the aspirations of everyone in my community, including those who struggle to get by, and wants to help them get the best for them and their family. Someone who will recognise the needs of everyone in society, not just people who are members of the Labour Party.

I believe David Miliband is that leader, and that’s why I’m endorsing him today as my candidate to be Labour’s next Prime Minister.

Leadership candidates haven’t quite understood the lesson of immigration and the election

The latest leadership candidate to suggest immigration was a cause of Labour’s defeat at the polls on May 6th, today. Andy Burnham follows Ed Balls, Ed Miliband, and David Miliband. Diane Abbott has also commented on immigration, though with a different perspective.

I’ve had some thoughts rattling around my head so it was interesting to hear the issue discussed at a seminar featuring none of the leadership contenders (yep, such events do still exist) during Progress’ conference on Saturday.

First thing to say is that it is good the conference showed that we – left-wing activists and Labour’s political elites – are prepared to talk, on a wider scale, about immigration. But unfortunately, it is coming too late. In the lead-up to, and the aftermath of, the general election, polling shows immigration as the second top issue, behind only the economy. Yet the national campaign and leadership said very little about it.

Between the campaign, the party machine, and the political leadership, the decision was clearly taken that set-piece events would, as much as possible, avoid the general public and significant efforts would be invested in filling rooms with (often young) enthusiastic party members. There was to be a distance between Gordon Brown and the undecided electorate. But if Labour is not willing to connect with the people of this country, and talk about the issues people are concerned about in their communities, then who is? Feeling this was the wrong approach, I grew frustrated some time before the Rochdale visit: when the problem blew up following Brown’s encounter with Gillian Duffy. She could have mentioned any issue and drawn a similar reaction from any of the party leaders, but what was very evident to me was the reluctance of our party leader to talk to ‘unvetted’ members of the public and an unwillingness to engage in significant conversation on an issue he himself appeared uncomfortable with. It was this, rather than the fact it happened to be immigration policy, that appeared to me to be most problematic.

Prior to this Saturday’s conference, with the prevalence of leadership candidates’ comments, I began to question which seats we actually lost because of immigration. Andy Burnham’s interview today suggests that “it was the biggest doorstep issue in constituencies where Labour lost”. I’d be interested to hear which seats he puts in this category. Because I think there’s plenty of evidence of constituencies where immigration is a big issue which returned Labour MPs. The two seats in Barking and Dagenham; Birmingham Hodge Hill where Liam Byrne doubled his majority; Slough; Leicester West – and so on.

So, when Ben Page of Ipsos-MORI told Saturday’s sideroom session that his polling did not show immigration as a big reason for voting Tory and that it was actually only the fourth highest issue on election day, I was not too surprised. The reason being that the effect immigration has on the Labour campaign was not necessarily a problem of policy but more likely one of the way we campaigned. That Labour’s punishment was for the unwillingness to listen, connect and engage – whatever the issue. Most people were not voting on immigration. But they were noting the way Labour’s leadership handled the issue and were making judgments on how the party might handle other big concerns. Those seats I highlight above can point to success despite this because candidates there were willing to talk about the issue and run strong local campaigns. They did not even do this in the same way as each other (Margaret Hodge and Jon Cruddas presented different analyses and approaches in the same borough) but they were open to talk about what their constituents were concerned about.

Sally Keeble, who lost her Northampton South seat, argued that we shouldn’t over-emphasise the impact of immigration as an issue in her defeat, and Liam Byrne told the audience that it was important to avoid reactionary conclusions on the effect of welfare and immigration. His research suggests that people had been feeling pressure on their earnings prior to the global economic crash for up to five years, causing people to be “living in limbo when looking for lift off”. (Peter Kellner, in the conference’s opening plenary, said that YouGov evidence, found BNP and UKIP voters feeling very similarly.) These people thought, Byrne’s analysis goes, that they could turn to the Labour Party to be on their side. The central thrust of my argument is that because of the way the national campaign was run, many voters were left wondering.

Clearly that’s not good enough and is something our next leader will want to think about.

Postscript:
Halfway through writing this post I cam across a news story from last week with the view of the last immigration minister, Phil Woolas, and some quotes from Patrick Diamond, who worked on the manifesto from No.10 (and was seen picking up a copy of the YF Fast Forward pamphlet on Saturday). It is worth a read. What Patrick says is not dissimilar from my argument; but where he defines the party’s ‘cultural ethos’ in terms of Labour issues and non-Labour issues, I am defining it as an approach to campaigning (and perhaps also governing).

Most of the leadership contenders have highlighted the need to look at how the party organises itself – the sooner the debate gets into detail on this, the better.