‘In the Black Labour’: A roadmap to victory?

Stephen Boyle assesses the relevance of ‘In The Black Labour’.

With the coalition showing signs of fraying and Vince Cable supposedly so furious at David Cameron’s “veto” that he considered resigning, the odds of the coalition lasting a full term has dropped considerably since Friday.

While Europe is currently dominating the agenda, any election in the near future will inevitably pivot towards the ailing domestic economy. Worryingly,  it is on economic ground that Labour most lack credibility with the electorate. Recent polling data from Lord Ashcroft and YouGov shows that despite people’s lack of confidence in the current government, they trust Labour even less to deal with the current economic climate.

Last week saw the publication of In the black Labour which aims to broach this gap. The authors’ proposed remedy is to marry fiscal conservativism with equality of opportunity.

I believe In the Black Labour points the right way for the party. Labour desperately needs a credible alternative to the coalition’s cuts. The five point plan is all well and good, but its emphasis on the “nice” side of dealing with slow or no growth, in terms of taxing bankers, investing in youth education and infrastructure must be coupled with a more open acceptance of the necessity for cuts. At the moment this message is failing to chime with an electorate that still views Labour as culpable for the current mess. In order to re-establish credibility we need to accept that we made mistakes in the past, and unambiguously commit ourselves to acting in a fiscally responsible way in the future.

As to the first point, we need to be more open to the fact that we made mistakes during our time in power. Look to the abolition of the 10p tax rate as one example. In his recent book, Alistair Darling makes clear the political and economic costs this disastrous policy caused. Being candid that we made mistakes in the past, owning them, and speaking about how we have learned lessons would go a long way to re-establish credibility. This should not be couched in the passive voice of “mistakes were made” as if they were agentless, floating in the ether, but rather owned by us. We made mistakes. We have learned from them.

After that message has had time to sink in, we can demonstrate our commitment to acting responsibly. That will mean setting clear and unambiguous targets for the levels of national debt and public expenditure. This means that we will have to look for new ways of achieving social justice with less money, a challenge to which the Fabian’s new year conference admirably rises.

By accepting the severity of the current situation we can build a message that draws on the values Labour epitomises and that are most appealing to voters. The current cuts disproportionately target the lowest paid workers and women. Labour’s message should be that we accept the need for cuts; we know that it is wrong to leave a legacy of debt for the next generation, but we will act in such a way as to spread the burden more fairly across society.

Those viewing the policy debate since Labour lost power must have felt like they were looking through a kaleidoscope as an array of colour-coded publications cascaded by. Blue, Purple and Red have all raised their standards in the ongoing battle to define the next generation of Labour policies. While many of the colours will no doubt fade over time I believe In the Black Labour should be at the heart of what the next Labour administration does.

It is time now to start planning for the reality that austerity will outlive the current parliament and last into the next. A Labour party that does not accept that reality and put it at the fore of their message risks being seen as the greater of two evils in comparison to a resolute and ideologically driven Tory administration.

Stephen Boyle is a member of the Young Fabians.

Is Maurice Glasman more radical than the nation’s youth?

God knows if the House of Lords is ready for Dr Maurice Glasman. The newly-ennobled community organiser/academic/guru left the Fabian Conference on Saturday entertained by his brilliance and agitated by his bluntness in equal measure. None more so than the Young Fabians who had invited him to be part of the lunchtime panel discussion looking at the “Squeezed Youth”.

The clunkiness of the term mirrors the fact that 11 million-plus 15-30 year olds in the UK don’t fit into any neat political box. So whilst the left’s political narrative focuses on the vague, yet compelling idea of the “squeezed middle”, it is the ‘lost generation’ being squeezed the hardest and left with the long-term bill for the future.

Take youth unemployment. According to the Centre of Economic and Social Inclusion, long-term youth unemployment grew by 22,000 last month and now stands 4.5 per cent. That is more than the adult figure.

Yet the Future Jobs Fund has been cut with no substitute being proposed. In housing, too, the Government will cut housing benefit for single young people under 35 by an extra £215 million each year, entitling them to only shared accommodation – because young people are expected to live in shared accommodation.

The idea was simple: ask young people to what they they feel ‘squeezed’ about and let them use their own voice. Lo-fi video-editing aside, the voices in the video were honest and real:

YouTube Direkt

Jobs, housing, transport, workplace representation – the video responses show young people care deeply about more things than they get credit for. Young people like 19-year-old Richard Serunjogi are not interested in just being limited to talking about ‘youth issues’. On Saturday, his emphasis was that young people have a stake in all the decisions being taken to shape Britain’s future, since that future is the one young people will eventually be responsible for.

So the lunchtime session at the conference was billed as exploring how Labour can reconnect with the young people behind these voices.

That was until Dr Glasman turned up. The largest round of applause during the session followed Glasman’s appeal against the “dispiriting, meaningless, interminable atmosphere” that follows many Labour party meetings, like the one he was currently sitting in. He remarked that the panel discussion managed to invoke old memories of a young Maurice-the-academic attending a conference in the Soviet Union. Brutally this was exactly the kind of meeting that community organising tells you not to have.

The worst thing: Maurice has a point.

As Jessica Studdert, who wrote a chapter on Labour party reform in last year’s Young Fabian pamphlet ‘The New Generation’, acknowledged engagement in Labour was often “in spite of, not because of” the way many local Labour parties involve young people. Yet new MPs, like Rushanara Ali, already know the importance of a more open engagement with young people. She emphasised that Labour MPs and the party as a whole needs to change the way it tries to interact with young people.

So young people leaving that session were left pondering: how did we allow ourselves to become less radical than Maurice?

This post was originally posted at Leftfootforward.

Hello from Yorkshire!

We’re now in the home straight of the election campaign and things are getting interesting. Here Yorkshire based Young Fabian Mike Harrison finds that people still sometimes forget all the things Labour has achieved in Government.

Campaigning is going pretty well in God’s Own County. In Brigg and Goole, Labour’s candidate and MP since 1997, Ian Cawsey (of MP4 fame), is proving a valuable asset to the Party’s campaign to hold the seat. He is extremely popular in the traditional Labour areas and even Conservative supporters, and, on the QT, even Conservative members, are saying they will be voting for him.

Whilst out in Goole North Ward on Saturday with a group of young Labour members sporting ‘Vote Cawsey…Cawsey’s Worth It!’ t-shirts, the response was either positive or undecided. It was a scorching day and the mood was upbeat, people wanted to engage and freely recognised that the new £19million Goole High School, the new £3million health centre, and the 2 £1.5million Surestart Children’s Centres were down to Labour’s investment in communities.

Those who were undecided found us willing to listen to their issues and in many cases were glad we had come round to talk to them about their concerns.

An illustrative  little story from Saturday’s campaign:

An elderly lady challenged us about our t-shirts ‘Do you think its right that we are paying for those t-shirts when the country is bankrupt?’ Our response was gentile – we explained that we have paid for our own t-shirts. I went on to talk about the winter fuel allowance, the free bus pass, free TV-licence and the pension rate being linked back to earnings – to which she replied ‘what’s that got to do with Labour?’ She genuinely thought these weren’t born from Labour’s policies, which backs up my long held belief that we haven’t been good at shouting about what our policies have meant in reality.

I’m also campaigning in Keighley, a Labour held seat with just over 5,500 majority. We have a great candidate in Jane Thomas – a wonderful example of where the Labour Party is and should be. She has been campaigning hard in Keighley for over a year which is paying off as name recognition is noticeable. On the doorstep Labour’s support is holding up even in her opponents neighbourhood.

Overall, people do have genuine concerns and questions they want answers to. They’re also, and quite surprisingly, more willing to engage in debate and discussion. More than at the last election and a lot more than I would have expected given the parliamentary crisis over the last year. Although I am of a particular political persuasion I think this election offers a far more healthier opportunity of democratic participation then previous elections.

There is a lot more work to do between now an polling day and so far I’m nervously enjoying it!

This post was also published on Labourlist

Not marginal but just as important

As part of our Campaign Diary series looking at the experiences of Young Fabians during this General Election, Tim Nicholls / @tim_nicholls argues that whilst all eyes are on the marginals we ignore seats like Southend at our peril…

So, the conversation usually goes something like this: “Southend? What’s the point? Hell’ll freeze over before the Tories lose there.”

Southend (which is split into two constituencies) is apparently safe territory for the Tories. More than once Tory candidates have very literally inherited the seat. But parts of Southend have unemployment at twice the national average and the difference in life expectancy between the rich and deprived parts of town is depressingly stark. The result is a political malaise in the town; progress at a national level does not translate to local action where it faces reticence and opposition from local decision makers.

So our role is to show that there is a positive alternative. On the doorstep, people hear this. Labour Councillors in the town are visibly hardworking, as are our PPCs: Kevin Bonavia and Tom Flynn – one, a former Young Fabian Chair, the other a former Exec member. In seats like Southend we’re the opposition, but we’re the opposition who actually want to make life better and fairer for all.

Southend residents don’t have any problem imagining what a Tory Government would look like. They see it and live it every day: failing public transport; a century-old market closed with 3 days’ notice; and the town centre’s pool closed. The response we get on the doorstep is increasingly that they would not wish it on the country. If people want better bus service; want local businesses supported; and decent accessible public amenities then the message from Southend is clear: vote for Labour.

In an election that is more than ever geared towards holding key seats, it may seem anathema to suggest devoting time to ‘safe Tory’ constituencies. And I may be biased: having grown up seeing Southend failed by its leaders. But I’m a member of the Labour party because I believe in our cause universally, not just in seats we already hold (vital though they are). I enjoy the fight in Southend: I think it should be Labour and I think we should be proud to fight for it.

Is it worth it? Well in 2005 in Rochford and Southend East, there was a swing from the Conservatives to Labour: just how many seats can say that?

If you got experiences from the front line of the campaign that you want to share then why not blog for us? Contact Vincenzo Rampulla at vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk

What happens when Manchester Young Fabians get together…

What did you do this weekend? Well the Young Fabians did something people don’t usually expect. We had an event outside of London.

I know, you’re shocked!

In fact our Manchester members said that they wanted to organize an event and we agreed to help, so a number of Exec members jumped at the chance go to Manchester for the day. Thanks goes to@sambaconsam whose brainchild it was. Thankfully the Greater Manchester Fabian Society were having their annual conference, so there was a perfect excuse to organize a social after all the serious policy debate!

It was good to see Young Fabians and young people in general being an active part of the debate. One of the main points that was hammered home at the conference was that to win a General Election Labour needs to show off its core values not just in its policy making but in its campaigning too. This is especially important given that there is going to be a whole generation of new voters who don’t see Britain today as a product Thatcher/Major but of Blair/Brown, they need a persuasive reason for picking Labour on May 6th.

In fact the need to go out and engage with voters old and new was a reoccurring theme. Dan Whittle (a former YF exec member) was compelling in setting out the lessons that need to be learned from Obama campaign, in particular the importance of engaging in dialogue with voters. (As Young Fabians who went out to campaign for Obama in 2008 discovered for themselves.)

NB- no fireworks were set off at the Young Fabian event...

Engagement definitely summed up the YF post-conference Manchester social. We were lucky enough to have a real eclectic mix of attendees: YF members, politically interested friends, students and people just curious about the Young Fabians. Again and again people spoke of the importance of finding new ways of getting people involved and staying involved. [Poor James Purnell, people regularly asked him whether he was sad to leave politics, as if being an MP was the apogee of being political and everything else immaterial!]

What was really interesting from our point of view was the number of people interested in politics but not working in politics who came to the event. Too often Westminster can seem like an insiders’ game but there are people who jobs are a million miles away from ‘Politics’ and yet have a genuine interest in the issue we talk about.

We even managed to entice a couple of floating voters to join us! Listening to them talk about what this election will mean for them reiterated the need for Labour to make a persuasive case on why the best choice at the ballot box is with them.

So with Manchester being such a success (look out for Labour conference 2010!) we were left wondering…where’s next?

Sara Ibrahim and Vincenzo Rampulla really enjoyed Saturday’s event as did Shamik Das and Preth Rao who were also there!

If you think there’s a Young Fabian event itching to happen in your area let us know! You can contact vrampulla@youngfabians.org.uk for an initial chat.

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

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

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

The goalkeeping performance of Brad Jones

This may seem a strange title for a Young Fabian blog post but it shows just what the Labour Party is up against politically.

Irish broadcaster and challenger to the Murdoch monopoly, Setanta, today published their FA Cup ‘plums of the weekend’; the players adjudged to have performed the worst across the three FA Cup quarter finals and one 5^th round tie that took place on Saturday and Sunday. Everton’s victory over Middlesbrough put a big smile on my face but it also got Brad Jones, Boro’s goalie, a place in this list. In Setanta.com’s justification for his selection, his performance was described as ‘about as convincing as a Labour party economic forecast’.

Let’s put aside the economics here and the unique circumstances we are in. Instead, the politics. Over the course of the 1990s – and definitely by 2003 and Iraq – television satire began to move away from a heavily anti-Thatcherite agenda to being critical of the Labour government. Natural, most people would argue, whether or nor they found it funny or agreed with it. This slightly obscure internet article, however, goes beyond critique and hits a severe level of either distrust, disdain, hatred, or all three, for the Labour party and the government. It’s a very light-hearted piece, and not at all about politics, but that in many ways serves to emphasise the anti-Labour feeling.

Never mind the polls, Labour politicians, advisers, organisers and candidates should be under no illusions as to the scale of the challenge that this indicates. The public must be convinced of three things. Firstly, that Labour is capable of governing (which the Setanta article seriously questions) and secondly, that we have the ideas and values not just to manage the recession but to improve the country in the more typical economic times that will return soon I hope. Thirdly, we must be explicit about the risk of electing a Tory government led by David Cameron.

Let’s start here on the latter. For me, Brad Jones performance was about as convincing as David Cameron’s claim to be truly progressive. His vision of a fair society is no doubt different to most people and now is not the time for government to withdraw.

Over to you for more suggestions …